Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 14

May 14

File:Eat Bulaga! title card.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. Whpq (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Oishi logo.png. This isn't a complicated logo under US law, and can be freely exploited on enwiki ({{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}). Relicensing nomination. By the logic of Template_talk:Freedom_of_panorama_(US_only)#RFC:_Does_US_FoP_apply_to_foreign_works?, English Wikipedia has no obligation to follow the restrictive RA 8293 (copyright law of the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator

124.104.16.92 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To anon IP user: this is a relicensing request, not a request to delete. Relicensing involves admin inervention due to the need to restore high-resolution version, yet discussion is required (not a simple case). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

concur with relicensing Perhaps a better screenshot would look better. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Those red balls are way too complex and easily meet the threshold of originality even in the United States. The full resolution really shows the details. ✗plicit 14:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Explicit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:24, 24 May 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:China Crosses Yalu.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 as is. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly PD, on Commons as File:Chinese troops crossing Amrokgang river.jpg Jay Cubby 07:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is The source of this predates publication in North Korea by 7 years (1951 vs 1958). I suspect Commons is incorrect. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinese troops crossing Amrokgang river.jpg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 14 May 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:Omaha Westview High School Academic Seal.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 ⚡ 01:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, wasn't thinking when I uploaded, opting to use primary logo to represent the school instead (see Omaha Westview High School) Hurstbergn (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Buffs (talk) 16:41, 20 May 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:Pinball Wizard Germany PS.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. ✗plicit 01:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if irreplaceable by this freer image, File:Pinball Wizard by the Who UK single.webp (portion of the British release), which is not subject to NFCC, the non-free German sleeve may still not contextually signify the original recording of the song or the song itself. Sure, it's relatable and more appealing than the freer image, but my concern is about whether omitting this German sleeve would affect the understanding of the song. If deleted unopposed, then the front cover may not be contextually significant after all. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that the front cover is also used in other continental European releases (discogs, 45cat). --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more contextually significant than a picture of the record with nothing more than text. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's definitely too many images at Pinball Wizard, but this is a better image as far as recognizability goes than a basic image of the disc. It's not a policy problem to have a single cover in the article, so I'd say keep this and delete the other two instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those other two are free to use (just in this project). One of them is for the Elton John single, ya know. Why should an amount of images in the article matter, especially to mobile readers? George Ho (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other images are worthless. They're extremely generic. They're plain discs with plain text plastered on them. Terrible images like those shouldn't trump over images that are actually recognizable and representative of the respective subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I seeing WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here?

May be "worthless" to you, but I think you know that the Who have been of British origin and a worldwide sensation, especially British and Americans. Right? The label from the UK single was how British customers identified the single back in those days. Like other British singles, the British edition wasn't packed in the picture sleeve, and I suspect the mass production would've been impossible to produce the picture sleeve in that amount back then (prior to late-1970s in the UK). If they bought a single packed in a picture sleeve, most likely the British customers could've bought imports of non-UK editions, like the German one, in other British independent music stores. Right?

The Philippines edition of the Elton John single is all I can do as free use, especially to replace the cover similar to a compilation album. As I figured, others, like you, would treat any other labels disdainfully and indistinguishably, like the UK single. George Ho (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read this part just now (Terrible images like those shouldn't trump over images that are actually recognizable and representative of the respective subject). You mean picture sleeves are "recognizable" and "representative" more than labels? This reinforces my view that picture sleeves are most preferable, have a lot of mass appeal, and has been relatable to people today, especially ones without historical context. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's baffling to me that you would write a response that concurrently accuses me of IDONTLIKEIT and acknowledges my stance, whether you agree with it or not, was based around recognizability and representation arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never intended to imply what you were saying. You and the other are very hard to convince because I know nothing else changes your mind. I stand by those "worthless" images especially to not mislead readers into rushed conclusions or uninformed decisions. George Ho (talk) 01:54, 24 May 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.