Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 25

August 25

File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 2024 September 1. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FriendRichardson.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCCP#1, as the article itself has a free image, as well as Commons hosting 7 other free images. reppop^talk 22:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. I'm gonna be annoying and note that Commons has 2 other free images, most of the files there are copies of the one in the article. But yeah, the one in the infobox is enough and including an official portrait doesn't do much to help readers understand Richardson's governorship. hinnk (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus -Fastily 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good image of the Philippine Arena, obscured by trees. Poor representation of the arena. The only instance of use, at Bulacan article, will be replaced by File:Philippine Arena - Front View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg shortly after this nomination. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The suggested replacement is fine, but not a whole image of the stadium. I understand that English Wikipedia is not a file repository, but given that the original is deleted from Commons, having a limited selection of images of {{FoP-USonly}} buildings provides a source for future editorial choice. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
With seven images of this stadium, plus the image I suggested, it is already more than enough to illustrate enwiki. Enwiki is not an indefinite file hosting service, notwithstanding the local exemption doctrine (WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE). I think these images are enough and there is no need for more images of this stadium (unless the stadium's appearance is altered sometime in the future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated image does a good job of capturing the juxtaposition of stadium and surrounding ecology. None of the images you cite do that. I will add that your note saying WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE is misleading, as WP:NOTFILESTORAGE explicitly allows files which could be used in articles. I don't think we're maxed out on potential usage when talking about the world's largest indoor arena. Nine images are not that many, and many of the ones you cite are much more similar to one another than the nominated image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle the boilerplate notice on top of WP:FOP explicitly states it is not a policy, so it is still inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting." It should first be made as a policy for it to complement with WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of the difference between a policy and an information page. Thank you. I am saying that the policy page explicitly endorses unused but potentially usable images like this. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.