Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

File:Brown Bears B Wordmark.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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:Brown Bears wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:45, 26 January 2016 (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:BeatlesTwistanShoutSingle.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: Kept for Twist and Shout (EP) only. Other uses fail NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Twist and Shout (EP), Paperlate and 3×3. Usage in "Twist and Shout (EP)" seems fine since this is the cover art of the EP and per WP:NFC#cite note-2. Usage in the other article does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and is primarily decorative. Paperlate#Artwork briefly discuss the similarities between to two covers, but such usage seems to be not allowed by No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The reader can click on the wikilink to see what the Beatles EP cover looks like, so another non-free image is not really needed. There is a bit more detailed discussion in 3×3#Packaging and artwork, but I still think No. 6 of NFC#UUI applies and the image should not be used. Suggest keep in "Twist and Shout (EP)" and remove from the other two articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Usage in other articles in this context is not decorative. It is used clearly to illustrate the parody comparison side by side without the user having to click the wikilink. However, it does appear that Wikipedia is becoming an imageless site. In comparison with other image issues and over-usage, this seems harmless. WP:NFC#UUI is also very ambiguous leading to many wiki users to have to defend their opinion vs. a black-and-white rule. It is my opinion that this meets WP:NFC#UUI.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is used in Paperlate and 3×3 to illustrate and clarify a major point in both articles about the single/album cover being influenced by a cover of another record. In the 3X3 article another influence on the album is described - by the rolling stones' title of five by five and 12 by 5. How and why an album is created along with the albums visual appearance is an important part of the description of that album. The Twist and Shout reference is regarding the significant visual influence of the image on the beatles cover, which is the main part of the origin discussion. Since the 3X3 album's description of influence is more detailed, and the fact that Paperplate single's cover is the way it is because that is the album's cover, I think we should keep the Twist and shout's image in the 3x3 album description and take it out of the Paperless single's article.

re I don't see it as a violation of No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Seeing the images side by side is key to one of the main points of the 3X3 article. That point is not regarding the beatles' album on its own, but about the visual similarity of the images of the two covers. Rybkovich (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Paperlate and 3×3. W:NFC makes it very clear that the use of non-free content like this should be kept to the utmost minimum, especially when an article of the topic exists and can be linked to. — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 3 February 2016 (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:Withthebeatlescover.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: Kept in With the Beatles only. The other article's use is decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in With The Beatles and Land of Confusion. I think the image is fine for "With the Beatles", but should be removed from "Land of Confusion" for similar reasons as given above in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 26#File:BeatlesTwistanShoutSingle.jpg. "With the Beatles" is only mentioned twice throughout "Land of Confusion": once in the infobox and once in the file's caption. This falls way short of satisfying WP:NFCC#8 (and WP:NFC#cite note-2) in my opinion and once again per No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, the wikilink to the Beatles article seems more that sufficient for reader's wanting to know what the original cover looks like. Suggest keep in "With the Beatles" and remove from "Land of Confusion". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Usage in other articles in this context is not decorative. It is used clearly to illustrate the parody comparison side by side without the user having to click the wikilink. However, it does appear that Wikipedia is becoming an imageless site. In comparison with other image issues and over-usage, this seems harmless. WP:NFC#UUI is also very ambiguous leading to many wiki users to have to defend their opinion vs. a black-and-white rule. It is my opinion that this meets WP:NFC#UUI. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Land of Confusion. W:NFC makes it very clear that the use of non-free content like this should be kept to the utmost minimum, especially when an article of the topic exists and can be linked to. — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 3 February 2016 (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:Cornell Big Red C Wordmark.gif

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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:Cornell "C" wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:38, 26 January 2016 (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:Penn Quakers P Wordmark.gif

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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:Penn Quakers wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 04:09, 26 January 2016 (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:Robert Hawkins.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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetrator of the Westroads Mall shooting is not the subject of the article and doesn't have his own biography. Therefore, the image of the perpetrator does not impact a reader's understanding of the shooting, not the person himself. Look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 9#File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg. George Ho (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (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:Valgerður Þóroddsdóttir 2015-09-26 B.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Also there are better alternatives to the photo already uploaded. Arielarielariel (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of my uploaded photos (aprox. a few thousand) have ever been nominated for deletion for this reason. Is it a problem that the photos are "orphans"? I take photos and upload them to Commons to document people, things and places with encyclopedial value. I upload my best photos and let Wikipedia editors and others choose which one they preffer to use. -abbedabb^talk 21:47, 26 January 2016 (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:South Dakota State SD Wordmark.gif

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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; File:SD jackrabbits scriptlogo.png replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 22:34, 26 January 2016 (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.