Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Ana's Cross.jpg

Challenging the {{Keep local}}. It was originally added citing that this image has no educational value, but I believe it actually does; it depicts a monument in a national park. It's also worth noting the Commons version of this file is being used on another wiki, so obviously it has some cross-wiki value. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep this copy overlapping the Commons file. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have always been a proponent of giving uploaders wide latitude when it comes to requesting that files be kept local. Not doing so may make them unlikely to upload further in the future. There are many reasons to make such a request (e.g. keeping it under the local rules as opposed to the arcane common ones). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image was a user page photo for Gilderien that is unlikely to have encyclopedic use. He is obviously welcome to upload (within reason) images for his user page. If they are in use, they are retained and if they are not in use, we don't need to keep them. This shouldn't be controversial. It never should have been uploaded to Commons to begin with because it's a userpage photo with no general encyclopedic use. If it's not going to be used here, it should be deleted both here and at Commons. --B (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: c:COM:INUSE does seem to allow photos for userpages to be upoladed and kept as long as they are in use. So, deleting it from Commons might not be as clear cut as deleting the local version of it here may be. Regarding the local version, WP:MTC used to have a section titled "What not to transfer" which stated the following:
Some users request that their work remain on Wikipedia, and does not move to Commons. Don't fight them over it; with tens of thousands of files to transfer, it's not worth it. There is no commonly used template to indicate a desire to keep one's files off Commons, however many users who wish to keep their work off Commons use custom templates or the {{keeplocal}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} templates, neither of which are designed for that purpose. The {{esoteric file}} template can be used for files of no interest outside Wikipedia, for instance self-portraits uploaded purely for use on a Wikipedia userpage.
but that seems to have been removed here as part of a major revising of the MTC page in November 2016. Whether that was the result of talk page consensus or just a bold edit, it does seem that the project was once a little more tolerant of "keep local" requests perhaps for the reasons given by Godsy above. Even so, it would be helpful if the uploader can clarify the particular reason(s) why they want a local copy of this to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Policy is unclear on what to do in cases like this.

WP:F8 says that files like this can't be speedily deleted under criterion F8. However, no one is proposing speedy deletion of this file, so the CSD policy doesn't apply.

The general WP:DP doesn't specifically address files like this, but indicates that any file may be deleted at FFD provided that there is a consensus to delete it.

The WP:OWN policy tells that no one owns a page on Wikipedia, i.e. the uploader alone can't decide that the file can't be deleted. The section on user pages indicates that a user doesn't own his own user page, but then indicates that the user has a lot of power over his user page, indicating some kind of partial ownership. The file's only use is on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, where users are presented in a way somewhat similar to user pages.

WP:NOTHOST indicates that we don't host stuff for the sole purpose of hosting them. The section indicates that unused files are to be deleted, but isn't clear on what to do if hosting a file is unnecessary because the file also is on Commons.

Someone mentioned that the file is in use on a different project. From what I can see, the file is only used on testwiki:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host breakroom. I'm guessing that this is a test page where someone imported a Wikipedia page for the purpose of testing something and that any other random image could achieve the same testing purpose, so the file's use on that page doesn't really indicate any cross-wiki value. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shadows the identical file on Commons that is within Commons c:COM:SCOPE. Should be deleted to reduce maintenance burden. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pokemon Go.png

Unnecessary, File:Pokémon GO logo.svg —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I am fairly sure that the Commons file is incorrectly licensed. I'll bring it to deletion requests... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken to Commons's DR last year; the result was "kept". George Ho (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Commons file is slightly different in that the non-free "Go" element is more detailed with stars, etc. in addtion to the Pokeball. Whether this is a significant enough difference to justify keeping the non-free file per WP:NFCC#1 is probably what needs to be discussed; otherwise, assuming the Commons file is not deleted, there's no need for a non-free file of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the file on Commons (without the stars etc) also an official version? Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The US and Japan offcial websites seem to use the non-free being discused here and not the Commons one; moreover, the "own work" claim for Commons file seems (at least to me) to be questionable since it's obviously something based on the original official logo and I don't think creating a vector version of an existing logo is the same as creating the logo from scratch. There are a number of poke ball files in c:Category:Poké Balls, but whether these really are all "own work" or "PD" again might require further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Commons one does not appear to be a real official logo - just someone's effort to make a PD-ineligible image that looks similar to the logo. The Commons one shouldn't be used in any articles. --B (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per B — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per B. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Commons file is inauthentic and thus not a free equivalent. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg

should be non-free reduced; claim that "People click through to view the image. They don't just view it in the article" by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily see my comment on Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair above. These images are not decoration. They serve an encyclopedic function in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the file size, the use of the painting as the infobox image seems to violate NFCC#8, since it obviously doesn’t visually identify the artist and there’s no critical commentary. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to identify the artist. The image show a piece of her work discussed in the article. I grant you the critical commentary is not extensive but it is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response indicates you either don't understand WP:NFCC#3b or have never bothered to read it. -FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Ytoyoda. Enough with the aspersions please Fastily. I have already replied re 3b (minimalism). It does need to be at the minimum size, but not at such low resolution that it ceases to fulfill its encyclopedic function. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact encyclopedic purpose that it requires to be available at a larger resolution than the thumbnail that appears in the infobox? If a higher resolution is necessary to view certain details, then why not crop to show the relevant details? And then if there’s an encyclopedic purpose to the image, what the hell is it doing in the infobox where it’s easentially decorative and fails NFCC#8? Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, but only if more of the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is provided. However, if the file is kept, it should be reduced per WP:NFCC#3b.
I don't think the file should be being used in the main infobox. That image should be for the purpose of primarily identifying the subject of the article. The picture of the work would make sense in the main infobox of an article about the painting itself, but not in one about the artist. This doesn't mean that a non-free image pof the work cannot be used in the artist's article, it just means it should be moved to the body of the article near the content discussing it.
The work is just mentioned once by name in the caption, which isn't really the type of contextual connection for non-free use NFCC#8 is looking for in my opinion. The connection should really between article content and non-free image, not the image and its caption. So, it would be better to add the relevant sourced critical commentary content about the work itself or commentary on how this work is considered to be particularly representative of the artist's style to the article body and then move the image near that content in support. Otherwise, I don't think it quite meets NFCC#8. In addition, the source cited (at least the part I can access) makes no mention of the painting itself, so basically the caption appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. NFCC#8 doesn't mean (again in my opinion) to simply write a description of the what the work looks like; it means to show that the work itself was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. If you could basically pick another work by the same artist's and support it with the pretty much the same caption or commentary, then there's no real justification for using any non-free examples of the artist's work. So, if the rest of the source goes into discussion of this particular work, then content summarizing that commentary that goes beyond a simple discription is what should be added to the article.
As for NFCC#3b, I'm not an admin so I cannot see the previous versions of the file; however, the resolution really should only be what is necessary for the article and not what is desired for the file's page. Mention was made above of File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg, but that was reduced by Ritchie333 per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23#File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg and I think something similar should be done here. The source for the file should be more than sufficient for readers looking for a higher resolution of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image should not be used in the infobox since it is not an image of the article subject. Since the article doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary on the work, WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. If the image is kept, it needs to be reduced to < 100,000 px per WP:NFCC#3b. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR, the critical commentary was in The Times where they discussed the objects in the work and interpreted them as a critical commentary on western military activity in the Middle East commenting on the "deconstructed" U.S. flag, the Arabic newspaper, and the Sun and Moon which related to their discussion of her "obsession" with astrology also mention later in our article. I moved it all to the body. My point about the size it merely that particularly with artworks, people don't only view the thumbnail they also click through to see the file so it needs to be of reasonable resolution when they do or the encyclopedic function is not served. It's already quite small at 332 × 500 but that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce according to our guidelines and keep - there is nothing that you have to see to understand the topic that you can't see in the inline version. Yes, to fully appreciate a work of art, it's nice to have a life-sized version of it, but we're not in the business of hosting high-resolution images of non-free works. If you want to study a high-resolution version of a copyrighted work of art, you go elsewhere to do that. No non-free image should be any larger than its size in the article. Wikipedia articles can be printed, or displayed in other formats where there isn't a "click-through" image description page and so if an image description page is required for the reader's understanding, then something about that process is wrong. --B (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce. The image should be kept, as it's no longer in the infobox but accompanies sourced critical text in the relevant section. The text – "In 2013 she produced Sun and Moon as a commentary on military action in the Middle East which featured a Sun and Moon, a carousel horse, and a tank against a split background with an Arabic language newspaper in the top half and a deconstructed American flag below" – really needs this image to be seen to be intelligible in any meaningful way. But the default thumbnail size (220px) that it's currently rendered in the article is sufficient for this purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wildgonebad.jpg

Unencyclopedic: Photo of the uploader (the page deleted), who is not an encyclopedically notable person, the file can not be reasonably used on any page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no encyclopaedic or educational value whatsoever. Completely out of project scope. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panicinthestreets 1.jpg

There is currently a file split request here but I am not certain that the older file is free. And if it isn't it should be deleted per WP:CSD#F5 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:OpenBroadcaster Logo and Text.jpg,200px.jpg

There is a file split request here but I don't see any worth in having either logo, seeing as both are unused. I also wonder if either version is really simple enough to not be copyrighted, especially the older one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:OMA airport logo2.png

This file has a split request, but the picture logo version looks like it may be copyrightable and should be deleted if it is so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nla.jpg

There is a split request on this file but I think we need to clear up the copyright status - does the permission statement refer to the first, the second or both files? Also, both need a better description and a better name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHCTsmall.jpg

There is a request to split the file but I am not convinced that the older file version is uncopyrightable given the shaded background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old revision - the original upload comment was "I created this for use on Wikipedia." I can't find any evidence that this was ever a real logo of CHCT. Their old website - available at http://web.archive.org/web/20090413231408/http://www.chct.ca:80/about.html - has a similar, but clearly different logo. in the real logo, it said "CHCT-TV" (not "CHCT" as in our version) and the background was something more simplistic. I don't see any reason to believe that the old version of this logo at Wikipedia is even something real. --B (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamlin Fistula International (logo).jpg

There is a split request on this file but the older version was uploaded without a copyright tag and tagged for deletion thus. Should it be deleted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wackos.jpg

This file seven years ago was overwritten by a photo. The reuploader did not specify a license and the license that applied to the old photo is clearly inapplicable to the new one. Delete? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bathtub (leg style).jpg

This file has a split request but the August 2009 version should be deleted IMO. It has no specific license attached and it isn't clear whether the license of the bathtub image would apply to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Washingtonia filifera landscape.jpg

This file consists of two separate images, an older one and one that was uploaded by Staplegunther. Upload summary for the second one says "St. George, Utah landscape by David Jolley" which sounds like it was created by someone else, raising copyright concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Televisionmvlogo.png

Television Maldives has a new logo, is this old one really needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Jammu and Kashmir.jpg

This file is currently displayed not on an article, but on another file and the graphics lab. It consists of two different images and there is apparently a question about whether it meets URAA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salem House Area.jpg

This file contains three images, the currently displaying one and two older ones:

Lukar's scan of some unknown image that is probably copyrighted and not under the same license as the current.
Zenedinho's photo which has nothing to do with this file, is small and again probably does have a different and unknown copyright status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Refugee-rights rally outside Bank of Queensland.JPG

There is a split request on the second version (wiki screenshot) of this file but it seems unlikely that it would be useful anywhere. And that might be a deletion reason under WP:DEL12 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reference Collection.jpg

This file contains actually two images, the first is some kind of userspace file that does not seem to be useful (or more pertinently, in use) for anything and thus merits deletion under WP:DEL12 and the second is a derivative work (of Peanuts) and thus almost certainly copyrighted. Advocate deletion of the whole file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BJPenn2.png

This file contains two versions, the second of which Tabercil called a "clear copyvio". If that's so it should probably be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Henry de Soysa-2.jpg

I've just split this file from File:Charles Henry de Soysa.jpg but the copyright license appears to be incorrect and an identical file was already deleted at File:Prince of Wales College Moratuwa.jpg.jpg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]