Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

File:Title crawl from Star Wars (1977); original theatrical version.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 07:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image is already adequately covered by the existing File:Opening crawl.jpg, which is used in Star Wars (film) and Star Wars opening crawl to illustrate the crawl sequence. There isn't a need to have two non-free screenshots to illustrate this. This version should be deleted as the other, older version is a lower resolution and more flexible for the necessary illustrative purposes (the three main components of the crawl, the visual style, the addition of the episodic numeral to A New Hope) than the image nominated. This version is currently being used for a more illustrative purpose at Star Wars (film)#Plot. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any harm in showing an example of the original crawl. The alterations on the film's re-releases—particularly regarding the retronymic subtitles—are a significant part of the article, so I think it's justified to show an example of before such alterations took place. Both images have encyclopedic value. Indefatigable2^talk 00:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This specific image isn't being used in the article to illustrate that though. It's in the article in the "Plot" section captioned as Opening crawl, describing a "period of civil war", so it's being used to illustrate a plot point. The older image is being used to illustrate the discussion of the retronymic subtitle, per its placement and caption. It's also not proven that illustration of before in this case even is necessary, seeing that without a subtitle simply has empty space instead, which doesn't really warrant illustration. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file’s description page says it’s used for commentary on the plot, which it is. The crawl is plot exposition, which is as directly related to the plot as could be. So, as a result, this file is serving two illustrative roles on the article, commentary on plot and a depiction of the movie’s opening sequence; it’s also low resolution and qualifies as fair use. The notion that without this image the reader would have to imagine how it looked is a point in favor of keeping it, not against. To answer the point of concern, any editor concerned about making sure the reader can compare this image to the edited crawl with “A New Hope,” who thinks it is not clear enough as currently written, could add an addendum to the new crawl’s caption lower on the page, “compare to crawl seen at top of article.” The answer is not to redact valuable and clearly useful imagery. Indefatigable2^talk 15:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no alternative - I appreciate the uploader's intentions. However, if it can't be used in Star Wars opening crawl#Episode IV opening crawl, then why need this image? The screenshot can be already explained in summary text (about the first film's plot), or it doesn't help much in context. Most readers can already understand the plot without seeing the crawl, so why doesn't the uploader find readers' ability to understand the plot adequately without the screenshot? Furthermore, any reader can search for an article about the crawl and see that the other image is already there. George Ho (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help but notice that this article features the “Star Wars” logotype in no less than five separate places. The reason for this, and I think it’s on good footing, is to illustrate how that logo is used in different contexts. I find trouble in seeing how the same does not apply to the crawl, particularly when it’s helping to illustrate the article. The reader could probably understand the plot without any images at all, but that’s not really the threshold, I think. The images are there to help under fair use, which it seems to me, this one does. Indefatigable2^talk 16:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In one case, to illustrate a discarded version of the logotype. Obviously the logotype is an integral part of these other images, but nonetheless, we see the logotype as shown in the title crawl, as shown on the soundtrack, as shown on a draft design. This appears to me a similar situation. Any thoughts? Indefatigable2^talk 16:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the screenshot violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS, which says that omitting such non-free content wouldn't hurt understanding the subject of discussion. Nor when it violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#Number of items if the other crawl is already there. Meanwhile, the logo itself is below COM:threshold of originality and is freely used. The crawl's expression has a lot more words and text like a literary expression seen in literature. George Ho (talk) 16:46, 5 October 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:WLNE logo 2013.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that a TV station's logo is actually under any Creative Commons license. For reference, the PNG version of the same logo it replaced is asserted as non-free. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's a good chance the logo doesn't meet the ToO. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 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:Chalakudy Puzha.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:Chalakudy River. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better alternatives available on Commons. ✗plicit 14:41, 5 October 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:Thomas Bach in Bangkok-17 April 2018.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of CC license. Appears to be sourced to Getty Images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sportaccordconvention/39721527020/ Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:05, 28 September 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:Prawit Wongsuwan in PyeongChang-18 February 2018.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 6 October 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:Madness - The Prince.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usages in Madness (band) and The Prince (song) may fail WP:NFCC#3a. Exceeds ten percent of the whole recording, which is ~~150~~ 198 seconds long, making the sample fail WP:NFCC#3b. Furthermore, the article already explains what the song is about in context, so I don't see how the song article can be worse off without the sample, making the sample also fail WP:NFCC#8. Same can be said about the band article. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC); edited, 23:52, 28 September 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:Naadi.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No indication where this photo was taken and why the location is notable. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 29 September 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:Madness - One Step Beyond.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Madness (band) and One Step Beyond (song) may fail WP:NFCC#3a. Band article already explains the band in context; same for the song article. Thus, the sample may also fail WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the whole song lasts 138 seconds, yet the sample exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent limit, making it fail WP:NFCC#3b. Even a 15-second sample wouldn't be contextually adequate to help readers understand the song. George Ho (talk) 23:52, 28 September 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.