Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20

File:BlueStarHighwaySign.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blurry/low-quality, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 03:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2021 (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:MagicTourNassauAML.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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of jumbrotrons are unacceptable derivative works. ✗plicit 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image is also of poor quality and not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the files are useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2021 (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:The last chordz "77.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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what this image is for. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (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:The Silent Film.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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is credited to a Matt Wright, but uploader stated at Talk:The Silent Film that his name is Jonathan. We need evidence that the photographer has given the rights to the uploader. Image is not currently in use. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (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:The Sign next to the Rochdal Canal.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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK freedom of panorama does not apply to 2D artworks. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2021 (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:Anarchy in the UK.ogg

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: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FFD nomination closed as "no consensus". Two editors favor keeping the sample in the song article (Anarchy in the U.K.). One of them didn't specify which articles, while the other said that the song article should be the only article to use the sample. The uploader wanted the sample kept in that article and two other articles (punk rock and Sex Pistols).

Before then, I wasn't sure about the sample's compliance with NFCC. Now as I figure, the song article has sufficient critical commentary to support the sample. The sample has similar captions in the both song and genre articles, yet I don't see the genre article sufficiently supporting the sample especially outside the caption. Also, I don't see enough commentary in the band article supporting the sample. In other words, the sample may remain in the song article but must be removed from other articles. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous. The last discussion closed two days ago and we are back here again without any new developments. There is more than enough critical commentary for all three articles. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:53, 20 December 2021 (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:Kena Bridge of Spirits - facial expression library.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: keep. ✗plicit 13:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A static image is preferred to an animation per WP:IUP#ANIM, especially when the file in question is non-free content. Using a single frame from the file would be sufficient to illustrate the gameplay rather than using an animation with 55 non-free image frames (WP:NFCC#3). Wcam (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader. The point of the file is to demonstrate the digital library of animated expressions used during the game's development, as discussed within the article; replacing it with a single frame would fail to demonstrate the movement and variety of the facial expressions, and the way in which the developers could quickly switch between these expressions while animating. – Rhain ☔ 22:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~a single-frame JPEG or PNG screenshot should replace this GIF file. I don't see the hesitation to use the single-frame screenshot in lieu of~~ the excessive animated clip. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a typical "animated clip", it's a demonstration of the development process used for animation. Replacing this with a single-frame screenshot adds nothing to the article; at that point, it just looks like an image of the protagonist's face, with several smaller faces to the right (which, because of the file's lower quality, are indistinguishable and therefore provide no context). – Rhain ☔ 01:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now I'm torn about a single-frame screenshot. Still, the argument you provided concerns WP:NFCC#8 and may be also one of reasons to delete the animation clip. Even with the clip demonstrating the process, I wonder whether the clip is necessary and whether readers can grasp critical commentary without either the clip or a screenshot. Re-reading the "Character design" subsection, I don't see critical commentary sufficient enough to support the clip. "Expressions" readers can understand well. The following is brief and can be well understood without NFC: The team created a digital library of animated expressions for Kena, allowing for refinement and consistency in the character. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any other passage adequately supporting what the clip demonstrates. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right in that the digital library itself is mostly referenced in a sole sentence, but the clip also assists in readers' understanding of other elements of the article—namely, sentences like "designed Kena's appearance...", "original 3D prototype model", and "For Kena's hair...". In addition to providing a visual representation of the digital library, it also provides a visual of the development of the character, whose design is extensively discussed throughout the section. – Rhain ☔ 03:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - We already have the main character in the lead image illustrating what you quoted (i.e. doing the same purpose)... except for the "original 3D prototype" thing, which I'm sure readers would be able to understand without the clip or any other. (Looks like another concern for WP:NFCC#3a unless you disagree.) BTW, a reader can understand "long cape" and "shawl" without needing to see it, right? George Ho (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that the library itself is only the subject of one (sourced) sentence, and if that was the only reason to include the media, I think this would be on the borderline of contextual significance. But as the NFC rationale mentions, "The clip also demonstrates the protagonist's design (including the 3D prototype model), the design of her face, and the design of her hair, all of which are discussed in the article." FWIW, the protagonist's facial expressions and animations seem to be mentioned in a lot of critical reviews of the game. This is not currently reflected in the "Reception" section, but if it were, it would make an even stronger case for this file. Colin M (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone stumbling upon this discussion, comments about the facial expression and animations are now reflected in "Reception". ☔

Keep. The article benefited/is improved by the inclusion of this file. It properly serves to illustrate the various facial animations/expressions, part of the game's development. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:58, 17 January 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:Kena Bridge of Spirits - Rot.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: relisted on 2022 January 18. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - Rot.gif (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.

File:Tinashe Aquarius.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 ⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, original cover arts have been used. Reissue ones aren't typically used. No exception is Lovers (Babyface album), which uses the original cover art instead of the reissue one. The 2020 reissue artwork of Aquarius (Tinashe album) is no exception either. The article either barely mentions or doesn't mention the reissue release in context. To me, the 2020 reissue artwork is used to differentiate from the original by mere appearance; it may fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (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:Gin Blossoms - Hey Jealousy.ogg

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: Moot/not actionable. File was removed from all articles except Hey Jealousy -FASTILY 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sample may comply with WP:NFCC#8 and may remain in Hey Jealousy. I could be wrong about critical commentary being sufficient enough to support the sample. However, the same cannot be said about its appearance in Doug Hopkins and Gin Blossoms. IMO the sample must be removed from the band article and the musician one. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, I could be wrong about the sample as acceptable fair-use content to use especially in the song article. No objections to deleting it completely from the project. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The critical commentary in Hey Jealousy is unsourced, while the uses in Doug Hopkins and Gin Blossoms describe the song being a hit rather than the music snippet itself. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ✗plicit 01:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Hey Jealousy. That an audio snippet of a song "significantly increases the reader's understanding of the article topic" in an article about that song is patently obvious (in fact, much more so than the non-free album cover art which is routinely included). Colin M (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just now removed sample from Doug Hopkins and Gin Blossoms. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 23 February 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.