Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 30

December 30

File:Katy Perry - Roar.ogg

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is no consensus on the NFCC#8 question, on the NFCC#3 question that should be addressed with the {{Non-free reduce}} tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An audio sample that doesn't provide any discernible enhancement for the article, failing criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria. It was likely added just for the sake of including some of the track, which isn't in itself a sufficient reason. Furthermore, this is too long per WP:SAMPLE at 23 seconds when the track runs for 3 minutes and 42 seconds (222 seconds), exceeding the limit of 10% of a song's duration (with 30 seconds being the absolute maximum permitted). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a plethora of critical commentary about the song's music style included in the article which increases the understanding of the text. The sample being too long can be remedied with the {{Non-free reduce}} tag. ℯ xplicit 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't aid understanding at all. People can get a sense of it just fine without this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 7 January 2018 (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:Dan Onorato 2008 crop.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged by @Train2104 as created by a banned user (Herblouise945) in violation of their ban. As these are currently linked, I would like to give the community an opportunity to comment before deleting. FASTILY 04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Normally I'm all for G5'ing everything that someone does in violation of a block. But free use images are a different issue. They aren't that easy to come by or require some work to get. The fact that they are all in use makes me want to keep them even more. If necessary, I'll take responsibly for them. --Majora (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2017 (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:Screen shot of Template-Caledonian Sleeper (Netscape 7.1).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows a web browser and a Wikipedia article. There is a source and license for the Wikipedia article, but there is no source, license or fair-use rationale for the web browser. (If I am not mistaken, the web browser is a Netscape product, but I don't know which. They are all non-free anyway.) Most importantly, this image is not used in the article space. This means, according to WP:NFCC, it must be deleted. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of looking at the image in isolation, look at where is it used. It was part of a development of coding which was not working as expected. It is appropriate to the discussion is was used in. As regards the Netscape product, the file clearly states it is version 7.1 and a review of the details shows it came from a PC running Windows 98SE. I fail to understand why the lister of this proposal can not fathom which Netscape product it is from based on the elementary information available. so let us look at WP:NFCC criteria.

Detailed analysis of WP:NFCC from Pencefn's point of view

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

This was produced to illustrate a difficulty in coding a specific page when displayed on a certain browser

Meets criteria as no free equivalent was available at the time it was available. In fact no equivalent was available.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.

Meets criteria there is no way this can replace an original market role of this image.

3. Minimal usage:

a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Meets criteria Only one item exists and it is only used on two Talk pages to assist in development of another page.

b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Meets criteria the full screen shot provides context and there is no original of this image that has been copied.

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

Meets criteria this is a derivative of work created by myself in Wikipedia.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

This is an image purely for page development, its retention is part of the archive to demonstrate the appropriate coding. Deletion will remove the context of the discussion of the coded.

6. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Not sure this applies in this specific case

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

Yes, this is not used in an article, however it is used in User Talk pages as part of a discussion to develop appropriate coding and its removal would lose the context of the discussion

8. 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.

Meets criteria the image is most appropriate in the discussion in the User Talk pages it is used in.

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

IF this needs sorting then amending the listing of the image is in order rather than deletion

10.Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

a. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.

This image has no market value or artist - so how do we sort this?

b. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.

If the incorrect copyright tag is used, a suggestion of the correct one would be appreciated

c.The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

The image description has sufficient detail to identify usage, as does the information in the User Talk pages.

Keep Image - Instead of blindly following what appears to be an issue resulting in deletion of an image, a solution to ensure it is kept should be followed. Not all images are used in article space, and as such they provide valuable context to decisions that have been previously made. ---Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 13:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So. Fair use would never be acceptable in this instance. Period. If it is a non-free image that is not actively being used in an article it gets deleted. That is how it works. However, if you were to crop out the netscape material (top and bottom) there would no longer be any issue here, Pencefn. --Majora (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot editted to blank the Netscape logo. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That isn't what I said at all. Not quite sure how I was misunderstood there but ok. Crop the entire netscape material. All of it. Top and bottom. Leave only the Wikipedia screenshot. Nothing more. No trace of netscape. At all. The logo itself was never the problem. --Majora (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencefn: Spamming this discussion and not adhering to the discussion etiquette is a very poor way of defending the image that has no source, no license and no fair-use rationale for its non-free component and according to your own admission, violates WP:NFCC § 7 too. In reality, unlike what you claim, it violates all but two of WP:NFCC clauses. Violations of articles 1 and 3 are the most gross of all violations: Your use in the given talk page never need the inclusion of the Windows taskbar or even any portion of Netscape. It could have simply been the Wikipedia screenshot itself. Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the NFCC also fail because they depend on the image being used both in an article and for an article. The prevailing problem in both your upload and your defense, is an absence of the required due dilligence for honesty, as well as an abysmal lack of proper regard for WP:NFCC, which happens to be one of the very few serious policies of Wikipedia. I am sorry that I cannot even offer you my sympathy.

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for censoring the Netscape logo, I don't even know what went on in your brain that you thought doing so makes the slightest difference. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how my analysis is spamming the discussion. It was my analysis of why I thought this image was appropriate. Since Codename Lisa has determined that by WP:NFCC this image should be DELETED. Do it now I am done with defending what was done in good faith 10 years ago. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating someone's image for deletion is not bringing his whole editing career into question. (This sentence is normally the defense, not the consolation.) So, don't be hard on yourself. As for the spamming matter, all I said was"this image is not used in the article space. This means, according to WP:NFCC, it must be deleted." To defend against it, you copied and pasted the whole NFCC here, only to admit that"Yes, this is not used in an article". It was not a good decision. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and there is very good reason for that: Its survival.

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2017 (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:Danger girls cover.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image currently only being used to illustrate a bibliography list. Kelly ^hi! 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Travis Charest. Salavat (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cover fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI because there is no critical commentary in the comic artist's article. Aspects (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2018 (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:Ruthwarejacketdesignpic.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a cover jacket., which as the uploader says is authored by Nick Tucker. Almost certainly not free as a photo of a presumeably copyrighted image. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 30 December 2017 (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.