Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

September 6

File:Gusa Regional Science High School - X Campus.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 ⚡ 06:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader was blocked seven years ago for copyright violations. There is no reason to believe that their remaining uploads are own work. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 04:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, varied resolutions, I suspect several may come from his friends but, copyright dictates that the person who shoot the camera holds the copyright, and copyright transfer is possible via a written contract or stipulation. The fact that they were taking photos of themselves now is irrelevant at this point. Nuke all these images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Given the variety of resolutions, and EXIF showing differing cameras, as well as a significant history of copyright violations, claim of own work is not credible. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 6 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.

DCAU images

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. In draftspace, these violate WP:NFCC#9. In mainspace, they violate WP:NFLISTS. ✗plicit 00:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These non-free image have been attempoted to be used in a draft contrary to WP:NFCC#9. Even if the draft is accepted as an article, the use of this many non-free images is excessive. Furthermore, the use for identificaiton in essetnially a list/overview article for specific elements does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it is not proper to have uploaded the images for use in a draft, prior to acceptance for publication. I thought the copy editor reviewing the new Draft submission would need to take the image content and placement within the article into consideration as part of their review/approval process. I was trying to be thorough, not violate a Wikipedia rule or policy. As far as your second point of excessiveness, I do not agree. These are very small image thumbnails not taking up much space and enrich the article. Is not the point of encyclopedic content to drive knowledge and education? The marketing materials produced for varied or disparate media IP helps to drive understanding of the media being referred to. If all of this content was contained within a single series, such as individual seasons of a TV show, yes I would agree that is excessive. Do not need a image showing the cover for 34 seasons of The Simpsons, for example. But with DCAU, there are multiple Movies, TV series, Web Series, Comics, and Video Games that on the surface do not appear connected or identifiable as related in some way to the DCAU collection of media. I do not see the point in removing content that serves to drive understanding to the reader of the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to obtain knowledge and helpful information about various topics. I believe the usage of images in this draft aligns to the criteria outlined here in WP:NFCC#8, and further that inclusion is not in any way detrimental to Wikipedia. 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. JGott85 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the proposed article is "DC Animated Universe (DCAU) Media Continuity, Canonicity, and Viewing Order". Removal of these non-free images does not detract from understanding continuity, canonicity, or viewing order. That information can be understood from the text. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq - I appreciate you the work that you do to uphold Wikipedia standards, without copy editors safeguarding quality and standards Wikipedia would be a mess. In this case, you the copy editor and I the article author with more knowledge of the subject than you have a different point of view and are not going to see eye to eye. I will reiterate one final time that my view that this is not excessive use of reference images and aligns to the spirit of WP:NFCC#8 and its emphasis on contextual significance. The inclusion of these images in not synonymous with, for example, the Law & Order article showing 21 DVD covers for each season. Showing the seasonal posters or home-video cover art for a singular series with multiple seasons does not drive understanding or help the reader identify or locate the content due to those seasons containment under a single series. Here with the DCAU there are a variety of separate television series with interconnectivity from a narrative standpoint, but this is not apparent on the surface to someone who is not familiar with the IP. Viewing the visual identity of the media does help to increase readers understanding of the article topic, and enrich the quality of the article in driving understanding of media identity. What I am having trouble with is that you stand to lose nothing by permitting these thumbnail images to stay, nor do you put Wikipedia at risk, nor would this article suddenly become a catalyst or basis for future articles to litter Wikipedia with needless/inappropriately used images. There really is no negative consequences in keeping them. But by removing them, there is quality loss, degradation of the encyclopedic article. Side by Side with both versions - with reference images and without - the article is less effective without correlating distinct media with its poster/cover/box-art.

If you are insistent and unwilling to change your pint of view, kindly I request that you compromise and please permit the primary 8 series and 4 film thumbnail images to remain as reference, as these are the core content of the IP readers should understand, with the remaining used as reference in the Tangential Media section to be removed, relying on the reader to click the main article link to learn more.

Thank you for your time and consideration. JGott85 (talk) 05:18, 13 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:VictoryPrimaPils.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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging is above the threshold of originality. I'm not sure it qualifies for fair use because the parent article contains only a single sentence about this beer. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a derivative of a copyrighted work. Although the photo is free, the packaging is not and the image's primary purpose is to show that packaging so de minimis is not applicable. There is nothing about the package or branding in the article that would support a conversion to non-free use. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 7 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:Tart as a double entendre.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: relisted on 2022 September 14. ✗plicit 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tart as a double entendre.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.