Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 9

December 9

File:Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png

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 ⚡ 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think it's important to illustrate the character's appearance in third party material, and this particularly drives that point, but I can get it across with other material (for example her in-game custcene introduction)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If reliable sources do not talk about this particular image, delete it as WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL. — Ирука¹³ 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also NFCC#1 - couldn't a free equivalent be created? This is a fictional character, not a dead person, after all. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but also true. Fanart has the same dual license as a photo of a copyrighted 3D object. Only here there is a redrawing. Thus, WP:FREER (3D) is applicable: you can redraw under a free license of the artist and a non-free one - of the object. — Ирука¹³ 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except when the fanart is drawn from a description: then a boy who doesn't look like Daniel Radcliffe, with glasses, a scar on his forehead and a cloak could be Harry Potter, but also be free. — Ирука¹³ 00:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image has been removed from the article after some discussion with Ganesha811.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FREER since the figure itself is under copyright, as well as MOS:OMIMG. "A potentially offensive image should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". I do not believe that the removal of this image would make the article less informative, so insisting on having it in the article under those grounds does not make sense, the figure was not even licensed by Nintendo so it's about as relevant as any other fanart of her. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – However, I disagree with Zxcvbnm's rationale. Kung Fu Man managed to, with reliable, independent sources, put together an entire section about how much this character is sexualized by fans both in commentary and in fan art, thus the image to my mind really has no issue passing MOS:OMIMG (OMIMG should be applied not as a binary offensive/inoffensive but in proportion to how much offense it's likely to cause, and in this case, a statuette of the bare back and partial butt of a naked woman is mildly offensive). There is no commentary on this specific artist or statuette, and thus, as anyone can be a "fan", there's literally nothing stopping someone from just creating NSFW fan art and saying "here you go" to Wikipedia – thus, it's easily substituted. Edit: I forgot to mention that I support the use of non-free material as long as it's only non-free with respect to Nintendo's copyright. With the collectibles maker, there are substitutes, but respect to Purah herself, there are no viable alternatives to Nintendo's copyrighted character, because that's the subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the image is not necessary to illustrate just how Purah is sexualized by fans. The image of her character is already in the article; and she is by all respects a typical human, it's not tough to imagine. Having an image like that would set a precedent to put some kind of NSFW picture in every single article where a character is seen as sexy. Samus Aran is a good example of an article where 2 images of the character IS totally necessary, because she is normally in a fullbody armored suit and it is literally impossible to express how she might be sexy without showing her in the Zero Suit (though ironically considered one of the most unsexualized while wearing it). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:46, 11 December 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:Gardevoir-pornography.png

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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is sometimes depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's (copyrighted) fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ganesha811: I feel in contrast to the Purah matter, this one does illustrate an important aspect of how people are sexualizing this character by imprinting human traits on the character, which is something also discussed on the article in question but also in some of the sources on the Pokemon and pornography article. I do think on those grounds there could be some basis to warrant an image illustrating that contrast between the actual design and what's here, though this particular image's usage is unsure of: I had originally sourced it from Destructoid, a gaming journalism website.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but we'll see what others think! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If reliable sources do not talk about this particular image, delete it as WP:NFCC#5/WP:ORIGINAL. — Ирука¹³ 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also NFCC#1 - couldn't a free equivalent be created? This is a fictional character, not a dead person, after all. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:@Iruka13: It's a copyrighted character, the same reason we don't use fan art images in infoboxes, and fan art isn't able to be uploaded to Commons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep at Pokémon and pornography, that entire article is based on this type of thing so it makes sense for it to be used there. However delete it at the other article. This0k (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FREER. If someone volunteered to draw Wikipedia a Gardevoir in a maid outfit then it could be less copyrighted than this artistic piece, despite the character still being under copyright. Furthermore, even a non-copyrighted, generic Pokemon-esque creature could suffice to demonstrate the subject of the article, an actual Pokemon does not have to be depicted at all, unlike a game or movie where not having an actual screenshot would not make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no free equivalent of this though unless someone were to reach out to the artist and they'd probably say no so Strong keep This0k (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether a free equivalent exists, only whether it is possible for someone - anyone - to make one and release it under a free license. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As with before at the discussion for Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png, my problem isn't that this usage fails to be inoffensive enough for MOS:OMIMG; it falls totally in line with what the prose itself is talking about and does a great job at illustrating it (both at Pokémon and pornography and at Gardevoir). Moreover, my problem isn't with Nintendo's copyright, as there's literally no free substitute to the character (as it's the subject itself). The issue I take is that a fan artist created this, but there are minimal criteria to being a fan artist, and thus anyone could create extremely similar art on their own and provide it to Wikipedia, leaving only a (valid) non-free usage rationale for Nintendo's copyright. There's no specific discussion of this specific artist or image in the prose (or in any of the articles we cite), and thus this isn't non-substitutable enough to warrant non-free usage. I believe this also applies to File:Gardevoir-PocketIncoming.png. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many Artists do not like Wikipedia, that's why they often put their licenses under Noderivatives when it could easily be put under Sharealike as they often want complete Fair Use. This0k (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's "not liking Wikipedia" or just not wanting to see their work messed with or taken by someone else? It's rare that an artist would release artwork under a totally free license, allowing it to be used in anyone else's creative work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all the points are valid; when I was setting up the article I asked artists about their use in the article, and several that responded emphasized they did not want their work to be possibly associated with any negative connotation towards such media. The image used was done so with the assumption it was by the Destructoid author, but they just took someone's art without attribution. That was completely on me for not doing a prior reverse image search.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 11 December 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:National Park 181.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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, edited with silliness. No encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification – @Explicit: What's meant here by "edited with silliness"? I get the feeling this may be a language barrier. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Please see it side-by-side with the original file File:Nationals Park 181.jpg. In the nominated file, two players are removed from the field, another is seemingly replaced by a different player, and the letter "o" in the Geico banner is replaced by an unidentified character. It's an unencyclopedic edit. ✗plicit 00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer – I agree that if it's no longer actively being used on Wikipedia (as it seems is the case here), then it should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a vandalized version of the file has no use here on the English Wikipedia, nor do I see any encyclopedic or educational use for it that would make it a good idea to transfer to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 15 December 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:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear why this image is needed in the article, even if it were free licensed (WP:NFCC# 8 & 3a). — Ирука¹³ 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, about that. Because I already posted that picture from partially-found or lost clip found on YouTube as video frame into the article of Filipino animation as free use or public domain. I believe none of them restoring that series Ang Panday and likely not having licenses for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Filipino animation § 1986–1995: EDSA Clearly demonstrates why this is important and has no non-free substitute: Ang Panday (1986) was the first Filipino animated TV series. That represents a landmark in any animation industry, and this is showing the title card. I see nothing wrong with its importance here as an illustrative aid, and no non-free substitute is likely to exist under US law until 2086. This is a very minimal usage with what I would argue is high value in the article and zero substitutability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. It's removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic of Philippine animation. It's importance can be expressed with the text in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claimed purpose of use in article is merely that this is used For an example of Filipino animation in television. But there is presently no sourced commentary on that logo; the title slide is merely decorative in nature. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:10, 18 December 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:Urduja with a spear.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--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the article is not subject to comments. It serves primarily as an illustrative function and has a parent article that has its own image that gives an idea of the animation. WP:NFCC#8, 3a / WP:NFC#UUI / WP:NFG — Ирука¹³ 11:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. The image is not the subject of any significant sourced commnetary and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 05:16, 15 December 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:Golden Lion size.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. While there are disagreements about whether the File:Golden Lion (prize).jpg is an adequate replacement, the "delete" !votes successfullly argued that this image violates WP:NFCC#1 as a free(r) equivalent can be created. ✗plicit 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

previous discussion
Per WP:NFCC#1/3a / WP:FREER (3D) - file:Golden Lion (prize).jpg. — Ирука¹³ 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – file:Golden Lion (prize).jpg, cited by Iruka13 as an acceptable substitute, is extraordinarily washed-out and barely even shows that there's text whatsoever on the plaque. This is frankly an abysmal representation of the item in question. The previous 2020 discussion got this correct; the WP:FREER photo is too poor of a source to be considered a near enough equivalent: the color is way off, but more importantly, with better-than-20/20 eyesight, I can just barely make out by zooming in that the plaque even contains text – one of the two integral components of the statue, the other being the lion itself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above nom. This0k (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per WP:FREER. The image may not be as nice as the one currently in the infobox, but is is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. -- Whpq (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm usually on the pro-free content side here, but I find TheTechnician27's articulation much more convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have poorly argued this nomination, I ask that the nomination be relisted. — Ирука¹³ 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FREER. While the image might be aesthetically better than the one in the history section, that image is suitable for identifying this. The guideline is quite explicit about this case: a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work. We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art. There is no wiggle room here based on aesthetic qualifications when the freer image is sufficient for identification of the award in question, which is the claimed purpose of use. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everything RTH said. Moreover, even if the lower quality version wasn't adequate for our purposes, the higher quality version would not be acceptable because a freer version can still be made, which means the "no free equivalents" condition isn't met regardless. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:08, 27 December 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:1960s-Peanuts-Magic-Slate-Paper-Saver.webp

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: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a person who does not understand what is in front of him, this image does not clarify anything. Especially in the resolution of a non-free image. And, moreover, there would have been more than enough of different covers over 70 years, and, therefore, the image performs the identification function poorly. I suggest deleting this image and replacing it with any free one. WP:NFCC#8 &1 — Ирука¹³ 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a person who does not understand what is in front of him, this image does not clarify anything. I don't understand why it doesn't clarify anything. The picture is used in Magic Slate and IMO illustrates very clearly what a magic slate looks like. It also illustrates how magic slate frames were often decorated with pictures of comic book characters, as discussed in the article. A non-free image is used because no free images of magic slates have been found. I requested a free image on the article's talk page in April 2023. —Bruce1ee ^talk 14:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A free image of this item can be created. It's not a dead person. — Ирука¹³ 15:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you aware that magic slates are actually no longer being made? Yes there are some companies out there making things similar but not identical. Regardless there is a chance there's a free file somewhere so I will look and come back to this, but they are in fact considered to be vintage.

Edit: Was not easy to find any free files of a vintage magic slate so Keep. This0k (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Zero indication a WP:FREER image is realistic with a rare, vintage, out-of-production product like this. Moreover, when nominator says: "this image does not clarify anything", I heavily disagree. I'd never heard of this product until just now, and an excerpt of our article reads: "The Magic Slate consists of a piece of rigid cardboard the size of a small clipboard that is covered with dark waxed paper on one side, a sheet of translucent plastic film that covers the waxed paper and is affixed to the top of the board, and a blunt stylus made of wood or plastic." This image immediately clarifies literally every one of those facets: the rigid cardboard the size of a small clipboard, the dark waxed paper on the one side, and the blunt stylus made of wood or plastic. This could not be more illustrative of what is being discussed in the prose. Despite how descriptive this article is, I feel I wouldn't have gained an actual understanding of what this product is without the image. It's crucial to the article's comprehensibility. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a free image can be found. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 13 December 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:Deterrence2.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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use in any articles, is WP:OR, and appears to be nonsense. PROD was declined due to a previous PROD I didn't notice. Can we just get rid of this already? Matt Deres (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's nonsense. It's an author created chart that explains an important topic. If it fails any FFD then try speedy deletion but I personally think it should be kept.

This0k (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for original research and is not a repository for un-encyclopedic images. If you honestly feel that it explains an important topic, add it to an article. Matt Deres (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then. Edit: I also want to add that I got mixed up and presumed this file was on Commons, my bad.This0k (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused chart with no explanation as to what it represents. -- Whpq (talk) 05:25, 15 December 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.