Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

File:Auhtors xi book.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free use of this file in Authors Cricket Club#Book seems questionble per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (also possibly per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFC#cite_note-3). Generally, non-free cover art of books, etc. can be uploaded and used for primary indentifiction purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the work in question, but using such files in other ways or in other articles tends to be much harder to justify. I think that simply discussing the work in question or even a descriptive statement about the cover art itself is not sufficient to meet either NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) or NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) and that there should actually be some critical commentary about the cover itself (e.g. some controversy in might have caused) supported by citations to reliable sources to justify it's non-free use. Simply stating that the book is basically 18 essays written by players on the team and their experiences of being on the team, and that there pictures appear on the cover, is not a sufficient justification for non-free use or the reader's understand. It such a case, I think the relevant text is more than sufficiently understood by the reader and that understanding is not significantly improved to the point that not seeing the cover art would be detrimental to that understanding.

If the book is itself notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it per WP:NBOOK, then I think it would be fine to use the cover art there for primary identification purposes. Even in that case though, I don't think it the current non-free use in the article about the Club would necessarily be justified per WP:NFCC#3a and itenm 6 of WP:NFC#UUI.

The article about the club seems to a combination article about a cricket club and some "prominent British writers" who are members of the club; this last part might make it perfectly acceptable to mention the book and even some of those who contibuted to it by name in the article, but I don't think it justifies the non-free use of the book's cover in the article.

The use of this file was first discussed at WP:THQ#Adding Photo of Book Cover to Authors Cricket Club. I saw that discussion and felt that the non-free use was non-WP:NFCC compliant and WP:PRODded the file for deletion. The uploader deprodded the file (which is fine) and further discussion took place at File talk:Auhtors xi book.jpg. I'm bringing it here further discussion and clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable rule WP:NFC#cite_note-3) states that in order for a non-free use photo of a book cover to be included in an article which discusses that book (but in which the book is not the primary subject of the article), the cover art must be "significantly discussed" in the article. User Marchjuly at first stated that the photo needed to be deleted because it is required that the cover art be discussed in the critical commentary of the book discussed in the article, but when I showed them that the rule does not say that at all, they then said that the rule is just a "guideline". It makes no sense that a rule would not explicitly state that the cover art must be mentioned in the critical commentary if that is indeed required.

The cover art is contextually significant to the discussion of the book because the book states that it is written by "The Authors Cricket Club". However, the Club has 30 to 40 players at any given time, while only 18 of the players contributed to the book; it is not in fact a joint effort of the entire Club but a collection of individual essays written by the most prominent members. The 18 players who wrote the book are identified by the cover art: there are 18 individual photos on the front and back covers, and those photos are of the authors of the book. Each one contributed an individual essay which constitutes one of the 18 "chapters" of the book. This is significant in explaining both the format and the content of the book itself, and therefore must be included in the article. It thus satisfies the contextual significance requirement.

Since discussion of the cover art must be included for context, the photo meets the requirement laid out by rule WP:NFC#cite_note-3) for inclusion in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC#cite_note-3 is a footnote to item 1 of WP:NFCI; neither of those two things are "rules" (i.e. policy), they only are intended to provide some examples of non-free use and help clarify to the relevant policy which is WP:NFCC (or more specifically WP:NFCCP). The question then is whether the non-free book cover is needed for the reader to really understand that the book is a compliation of 18 essays written by 18 club members per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. How does showing the cover significantly improve the reader's understanding of the content written about the book, i.e. that 18 people contributed essays to the book? How would not showing that book cover be detrimental to that understanding? That is what NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 (which are the policy) are asking. For example, if the article went on to further describe the book cover as showing the pictures of the 18 members who contibuted essays (including some who are men and some who are women) on a yellow background, where all those pictures are wearing their cricket uniforms, etc. then that would be much more descriptive, but not really something that the reader actually needs to see to understand.
The file shows 12 persons on the front cover; so, I'm assuming that means there are 6 more photos on the back cover. Does that mean the reader doesn't really need to see the 6 photos on the back cover or that only the 12 on the front cover really need to be seen? Why is it only important to see the front cover with 12 photos on it if the reader needs to see the cover to understand that 18 people contributed to the book? If it's OK for the reader to not see those 6 on the back cover (i.e. not detrimental to the reader's underatanding), then it seems just as OK for then not to see the 12 on the from cover for the same reason.
It's not really the burden of someone who thinks a non-free file shouldn't be used to establish that it shouldn't be used, but rather the burden of someone wanting to use the file to establish that the use is valid per WP:NFCCE. So, if you can clarify both here and in the file's non-free use rationale how not seeing this particular cover art is actually detrimental to the reader's understanding about anything written about the book in the article, then that might help sort this out and be more of a convincing argument in favor on the file's non-free use in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have insisted that we debate this across three boards now and frankly, it's exhausting. The walls of text, the repeated editing of my comments when I have asked you to stop doing it (followed by the longwinded explanations about why you need to control my comments), the hours and hours of arguing, etc. - it's all taking up a massive amount of my time for one photo of a book that illustrates an article section entirely about that book. I am not willing to devote my entire life to this.

The photo is useful and it meets the requirements laid out by Wikipedia for inclusion. What is not useful is for you to create hypothetical scenarios about describing the book as yellow and describing what the writers are wearing, etc. Yes, there are six more photos on the back of the book and I would be happy to load that photo, too and add it if you'd like. I felt the front of the book was adequate. Wikipedia allows for the photo to be included as long as the cover art is significantly discussed in the article. It is. It enhances reader understanding of the subject in the same way that 99% of the photos on Wikipedia do, by illustrating what is being discussed.

Even though I wrote the entire article, I just don't think I could possibly care as much about this photo as you do. I have a job, a family and many other things I need to get to. The admins will do what they want with the photo. I'm officially out. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a question at the Teahouse (the first "board") and I responded. My answer explained why I felt the file didn't meet WP:NFCCP. I didn't insist you respond to my post or that you keep posting there at all; I actually suggested on the file's talk page that the Teahouse was not the best place to discuss this. The second "board" we discussed this was on the file's talk page. I did try to tweak the indentation of some of your posts and mistakenly removed the first letter of two sentences while doing so; I caught one of the mistakes and re-added the letter, but didn't catch the other. I apologized for this and explained that it was only done to try and mitigate your exagerated indentation (there's really no need to add two or more extra levels of indentation when only one is prefectly sufficient) per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors. I added a bullet point to your first post here, because bullet points are generally preferred when adding new comments to XfD discussions as explained in WP:AFDFORMAT (note that Cullen328 did use this format when he posted below and you used one in our response to him). Again, this was just done in good-faith, not to try and "control" what you post. You also copied and pasted one of your Teahouse replies to the file's talk page but forgot to sign your post when you did; a bot came by later and added the missing signature. This type of talk page maintenance is not intended to control what someone posted, only to try and keep things easy to understand. The third "board" I guess is this FFD. I mentioned FFD as a place to discuss the file both at the Teahouse and on the file's talk page, particularly as a good way to get other input. There's nothing wrong with continuing the discussion here and in fact might lead to clarification as to how the NFCCP should be applied to this particular non-free file's use.
Cullen328's post below states In other articles, the article should include properly referenced critical commentary about the cover art in order for an image of the cover to be eligible for the WP:NFCI #1 exception. which is basically what I posted about "critical commentary" at the Teahouse on the file's talk page; you disagree with this which is fine. I think the word "significant" as used in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 refers to WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion (i.e. WP:NFCC#8); if you disagree with that too, then that's fine as well. The book cover is actually yellow and the photos do actually show the players/essay writers wearing their uniforms; I pointed this out since even though it would be possible to add more descriptive content about the book cover to the article, that would still be insufficient (at least in my opinion) to justify the current non-free use of the file. Mentioning the cover art and then basically describing it in the article is not the same (in my opinion) as "the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article" of NFC#cite_note-3.
Finally, with respect to non-free images, "illustrative" can be interpreted to mean "decorative", and decorative non-free use is something which is not really allowed; so, trying to argue WP:OTHERIMAGE or even WP:THOUSANDWORDS is not as helpful as clarifying how omitting this image from the article would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of that particular section about the book. How will the average reader's understanding of the book be significantly improved by seeing the cover and how will not seeing the cover be detrimental to that understanding? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I regret that my answer at the Teahouse was too quick and lacked nuance. My final sentence urged Lilipo25 to follow the guideline carefully, but in retrospect, I realize that I should have provided more context about how the guideline is usually interpreted. In an article about a book which includes critical commentary of the book, an image of the cover is appropriate to identify the book. In other articles, the article should include properly referenced critical commentary about the cover art in order for an image of the cover to be eligible for the WP:NFCI #1 exception. If the book itself meets the notability guideline for books, then the image could certainly be included in such an article about the book. I want to emphasize that I have not investigated the notability of this specific book, and that I know very little about cricket. My apologies to Lilipo25. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology at all is necessary, Cullen. Your comment was useful and I appreciated it. I'm just sorry that you got dragged into what has turned into an obsessive and endless argument over a single photo illustrating an article section about the subject of that photo. It's just not worth it. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The image of the book cover is not needed to understand information about the book. The usage in in the article is decorative and fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2019 (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:Southwarkcath.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source URL is no longer functioning, and appears to have a direct link to the image. The domain appears to have since been taken over by porn spammers. The image is claimed to be under GFDL 1.2 and CC-BY-SA 3.0 but those same claims were made at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 7#File:Rochestercath.jpg and turned out to be very much false. Whpq (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image was originally published here. The site used to read, "You are also welcome to use the photographs without permission," but I don't know if that translates to an acceptable license. - Eureka Lott 00:41, 14 July 2019 (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.