Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 24

March 24

File:Bolshevik Party Anthem.mp3

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. asilvering (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Lebedev-Kumach died in Russia at 1949, so the song was public domain after 70 years since the author's death. The song entered public domain in Russia in 2019. In the case of U.S, if the song as no copyright notice, it would most likely be public domain and thus, allowing transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, the copyright will expire in 2035 if it has a copyright notice for the U.S. But how did the user Noctawny labeled this file as fair use? Should we also alter the file "Life Has Become Better.mp3" BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was back in 2022; I didn't know much about copyright stuff then. Do what you need. Noctawny (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its composition may have been in 1939, but the PERFORMANCE itself might be copyrighted. There is no indication about when this was performed which attaches its own copyright. As we cannot determine its copyright status, we should presume it's copyrighted and only use it in NFCC contexts, which this one fails. Buffs (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2025 (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:Flow movie poster.jpg

This file does not pass Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1. c:File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png is a free image that shows the same artwork, same scene in the movie in higher quality.

File:Flow (2024 film) poster.jpg was previously deleted but @Areaseven reuploaded it here and they and and @Jon698 keep re adding it to the article, with the claims that "film posters are used in the infobox of film articles" and "No written policy is needed as it is the de facto way of doing this.". They haven't cited any policy or even a discussed consensus that posters must be used in the infobox. So how is this de facto usage supposed to override Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? 999real (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single film on Wikipedia made after the 1930s uses the poster in the infoboc regardless of the copyright status of the film. It is fundamentally wrong to change that here. The infobox image is understood to be for the poster and nothing else. Jon698 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists will not make this particular poster pass NFCC. The image parameter of Template:Infobox_film states "Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD or VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used." 999real (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FYI, I did not reupload the film poster. The original file used the Latvian title Straume and had the cat in a different pose. I merely uploaded a different film poster from a different source. Get your facts straight before making another false claim, @999real.

Now, in the case of the Blender 4.4 splash screen, while it features the cat from Flow, it is not representative of the film, as it is primarily used to promote the open-source software Blender. Cropping the image like @999real suggested in a different discussion is also out of the question, as that will affect the image's CC license. - Areaseven (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you uploaded another poster of the same film, after the other one was deleted.

"Cropping the image will affect the image's CC license" is not true. See the legal code of the license and files like c:File:SpongeBob_SquarePants_character.png 999real (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator for deletion has failed to properly argue how we should ignore the precedent of all other film articles on Wikipedia. Jon698 (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has failed to provide any reason that this precedent should override Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. 999real (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand what precedent is?? Jon698 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown any precedent that non free film posters should be used in the infobox for films when a free, representative image of the film exists. 999real (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the onus is on you as you are the one making the deletion claim, here is a short list of films that stand in opposition to your policy Abraham Lincoln (1930 film), Algiers (1938 film), Africa Screams, The Amazing Mr. X, Angel and the Badman, The Animal Kingdom (1932 film), At War with the Army, Attack of the Giant Leeches, The Bat (1959 film), Beat the Devil (film), Beau Ideal, Becky Sharp (film), Behind Office Doors, The Big Wheel (film), Bird of Paradise (1932 film), Blood on the Sun, Blue Steel (1934 film), Bowery at Midnight, A Bucket of Blood, Captain Kidd (film), Charade (1963 film), The Chase (1946 film), Conspiracy (1930 film), The Deadly Companions, Dementia 13, Dixiana (film), Father's Little Dividend, A Farewell to Arms (1932 film), 2001: A Space Odyssey, Night of the Living Dead, The Last Man on Earth (1964 film), McLintock!, The Terror (1963 film), 12 Angry Men (1957 film), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Dr. Strangelove, ad infinitum. Now show me a single example of your proposition. Jon698 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already established that the poster of Charade (1963 film) is in the public domain, contrary to your claim, and that the trailer of 2001: A Space Odyssey can not be used for a good replacement of the poster. If you really looked through all the free content and concluded all the posters are actually under non free use and none of the films have free content representative of them, good for you. The simple fact is that whatever precedent there may be, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy and it and Template:Infobox film do not support that precedent. 999real (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are dodging the question because you have no answer. Please provide a single example of your claim in practice. The image you provided IS NOT a substitute for the poster. Jon698 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it over and over isn't going to make it true. Template:Infobox film allows using screenshots or "film-related image"s. You want to ignore that, ignore Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and ignore the fact that an administrator deleted the previous version of the poster, all because Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and for what? So that we can use a lower quality version of the same artwork with some unreadable text on it! 999real (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question remains dodged. Jon698 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- the reason that the movie poster satisfies the non-free content criteria is that it, and the free blender image, are not identical. Therefore, the blender image cannot serve as a free alternative to the movie poster for the purpose of showing the movie poster. Showing the movie poster is what we're trying to do, to try to help people identify the film. The free blender image is clearly not a movie poster, lacking the characteristic font of "Flow", and the accolades listed on the poster. That's why #1 of the criteria is not violated. The other commenters here, while not directly referencing criterion #1, are trying to argue that it is important that the article uses the actual poster rather than a related image. Despite the fact that the Infobox allows using screenshots, the infobox is not policy and cannot be used to say that the free blender image is a valid replacement, because the reason it's important to use the actual poster is not because of whatever the infobox guidelines say, but because people will recognize the poster. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698 is citing the established precedent that film posters are worth using rather than related images to argue that related images would not serve the "same encyclopedic purpose", which is what the NFCC #1 actually says. This is a valid argument and is not an attempt to avoid discussing the NFCC.

Additionally, WP:Other stuff exists does not apply here -- that essay (not policy) only says that referring to other images of film posters with free alternatives, which were not deleted, would be invalid. It does not say that you cannot reference the fact that there is community consensus supporting your point (that related images cannot serve the same encyclopedic purpose as film posters) in order to support your point. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't read the accolades on the poster!! It can't have encyclopedic purpose as a movie poster when it is so low quality it doesn't have the features of a movie poster! Again, since there is a free image, we can edit the Flow text onto it. 999real (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Blender splash screen isn't a suitable replacement since the prominent Blender logo is going to confuse readers. I don't think modifying it to create a free replacement is a feasible solution. hinnk (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image itself freely licensed? It seems like the only copyrightable element here is already free due to being part of the Blender splash screen. Otherwise I'm going to buck the trend and say Delete - I find the irreplacability argument here entirely unconvincing, for basically the same reasons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the movie poster. Buffs (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasig Revolving Tower, Mega Market (Pasig; 04-26-2021).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: keep. ✗plicit 14:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better cropped version (with focus on the subject) locally imported as File:Pasig Revolving Tower, (Pasig; 04-26-2021).jpg. This may be considered as duplicate of the cropped (and more focused) version. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File is in use. A narrow focus on the tower and a broader focus on the tower and surrounding city context are both valuable in different situations. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2025 (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:Teenage Devil Dolls (movie poster).jpg

Does not meet WP:NFCCP#1. Definitely not PD, as here on Ebay, on the reverse side, there is a copyright notice dated 1987. This could possibly be a free replacement, since I could not find any related copyright renewal/registration, and it does not carry a copyright notice. Janhrach (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with this usage. A film poster is the de facto method by which a film chooses to identify itself to the public. That's the textbook case for NFC. Buffs (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southeast Iowa Superconference logo.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 ⚡ 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned replaced by File:SEISC.png on Commons. Appears to contain an artifact from scanning, and the off-white background isn't transparent. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per F8 -Samoht27 (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (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:Room 93 - Alternative cover.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 ⚡ 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estar thank you for your worries, it is understandable if does not pose significant information. However this album cover is also used internationally, as I've seen it just as much as the original in the infobox prior to the alternative's upload. The source provided from the image as the alternative's cover is from Amazon[1], I can find other sources if you believe the file can remain. Itsirlpidge (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2025 (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:Lorde - Solar Power (Alternate cover art).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 ⚡ 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not discussed in the article so adds nothing to a reader's comprehension. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alternate cover is discussed and described at Solar_Power_(album)#Artwork: In some markets, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, Lorde's buttocks are censored by a bright sunlight lens flare. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:47, 28 March 2025 (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:Chemtrails Over The Country Club (Target Exclusive).jpeg

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 ⚡ 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806, consider nominating the files found with https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/92059, though I haven't looked through all of them. Jay Cubby 23:38, 25 March 2025 (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.