Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8

File:Restless Overexposure.jpg

There's already one piece of non-free media showing the visual style. I'm not sure that two can be justified. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The episode is known for its unique visual style and that's why there are images, which are backed by it being discussed in the article along with sources. The article was promoted to GA with said images and there was no issue. I'd happily replace the second image with another example, if you believe there's a better choice. I worked hard on that article back in 2011 to get it to GA, so I'd like for it to stay intact–images and all. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just going to point out WP:ITSGA here since passing through an FA/GA discussion without being noticed or being used in an FA/GA article doesn't automatically mean WP:NFCCP compliance. However, this does seem to be pretty close to if not already meeting WP:NFC#CS (i.e. WP:NFCC#8) given that it's used to help the reader understand how a particular filming technique was used in support of article content about the technique. Personally, I think it would be better if there was a secondary source cited for the content along with the DVD audio commentary cited by Wheldon in support of that; that would make the justification for the non-free use of this particular screenshot stronger in my opinion. Are there any secondary sources that can be found which discusses the filming techniques used for this episode? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the overexposure visible in this image has adjacent sourced critical commentary. The other image is used to illustrate other visual aspects. Two images to make two separate points is not excessive. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg

This was previously deleted at FfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 8 concluded that the copyrightability of the image and/or any fair use claim should be discussed in more depth here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per same reasons of previous FfD. Unused and unusable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low-resolution, very blurry, would be a detriment to any article it is forced into -FASTILY 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value as the file is of terrible quality. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the file's low resolution, but there's no other file out there which actually shows the subject of the article. Originally brought up as a copyright violation, but I'm still not sure why. Only orphaned because it was previously deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the one who initiated the deletion review. Copying from my proposal there: One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image, in its original context in the article (Veil of Veronica):

There are at least six images in existence which bear a marked resemblance to each other and which are claimed to be the original Veil, a direct copy of it or, in two cases, the Mandylion. Each member of this group is enclosed in an elaborate outer frame with a gilded metal sheet (or riza in Russian) within, in which is cut an aperture where the face appears; at the lower extreme of the face there are three points which correspond to the shape of the hair and beard.

Veil of Veronica

The Vatican Veronica.

The Holy Face of Vienna.

The Holy Face of Alicante.

The Holy Face of Jaén.

Comment I am under the impression that the Vatican Veronica is displayed every year and that for that reason a free alternative could be created. Is that right? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likewise under the impression that a free alternative may be available. At least as importantly, if we're going to base an image on fair use, this may be our only one, but it looks like there are better images out there that would be better suited, no? What am I missing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would cropping this image to exclude the frame etc. be {{PD-art}}? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Lion size.jpg

Wikipedia:NFCC#1. There is a free copyright and similar topic image. SCP-2000 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use{{ping}} when you talk to me. Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominated image is the three-dimensional artwork of the prize. The one at Italian Wikipedia (it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png) is the drawing (two-dimensional) derivative of the copyrighted sculptural work; someone at it-wiki should either re-categorize it as non-free (but fair use) or nominate it for deletion. The "free" one shan't be transferred to Commons. -- George Ho (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the note, Italy lacks freedom of panorama especially for buildings and three-dimensional artworks (c:COM:FOP Italy). George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use File:Oshri Cohen holding the Golden lion.jpg instead, per WP:FREER. --Wcam (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a picture of Oshri Cohen holding the award acceptable per Commons rules and copyright law? George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho:I think the image acceptable per rule.--SCP-2000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to crop the image if it were used, to remove Cohen's face? I'd rather not have him be the "main" image of the Golden Lion article and thereby get UNDUE prominence. (If so, then delete and used a cropped version of the Cohen image.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing or the file page describing where the photo was taken, I am uncertain whether the award portion of the Cohen image is suitable for Commons. Strangely, photos of other people holding their own awards, like Neil Patrick Harris, one guy holding an Oscar, and one supporting actress holding an Emmy, aren't yet deleted. I found one 2012 Commons discussions about the issue. By reading the discussion, those photos were supposed to be generally discouraged (unless cropping out awards is possible?), and de minimis may not apply. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upload locally a cropped version from File:Oshri Cohen holding the Golden lion.jpg as non-free to satisfy WP:FREER. I don't think it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png would have been a free equivalent anyway; it's not the real deal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]