Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 20

May 20

File:Kesha - Gag Order (2025 Reissue Cover).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 ⚡ 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork fails per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; its inclusion would not benefit readers of the article, and its coverage within published media has not been met, whereas the original artwork has been (as cited in Gag Order (album) article). livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As not only the album's name but also the cover was changed in most streaming flatforms, namely this situation can make readers confused, and will make more if we don't put altered cover on the infobox of article. Only describing with text doesn't make readers fully understand about the content. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agrees with you. 2804:29B8:5057:AF08:F455:E1E4:6E2D:C27C (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artist retroactively changing the artwork for the album merits inclusion because it might confuse readers to only see the old artwork. 2603:7000:6E3C:4A85:3471:4668:D41A:7D83 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that it violates WP:NFCC#3a ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"). I think describing the change in a footnote provides similar information to providing the actual image and sufficient context for readers. ~AnotherFriendlyHuman (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 21 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:ASB 90s logo.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 ⚡ 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer the current logo of the bank, NFCC#8 is failed as it has been replaced with a simpler logo that doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 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:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg

Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. Jay Cubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. E_F⁵ 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. Jay Cubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the 2011 Joplin tornado article is valid) was that tornado photos almost always will qualify under NFF criteria as long as no free-to-use photos/videos exist. This consensus and admin confirmation came following a very huge and long RFC on the Commons, after the deprecation of a copyright template that was highly-used for tornado photographs. To me, the free-cam-video found by JayCubby would indeed mean Poplar Bluff's NFF does not pass the criteria. However, no evidence has been presented of Tylertown having free-use-videos/photos, so under WP:AGF & WP:ONUS, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.

To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t even visible in that video. E_F⁵ 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — E_F⁵ 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. Jay Cubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. E_F⁵ 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JayCubby Yes and no to your NFCC8 concern. NFC criteria is "most generous" (admin words) on English Wikipedia, for being more like a "low-bar" to pass. NFFs of tornadoes cannot just be for decoration. However, it is extraordinarily common (i.e. extremely rare if not) for RS to use a specific adjective with tornadoes. For example if you hear "large tornado". That does not really give a clear picture in the readers mind of what size the tornado is. An NFF of said tornado showing what "large" actually means passes NFCC8, since it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC8). That was why, generally speaking, tornado NFCs are allowed on Wikipedia; since adjectives are almost always associated with tornadoes (in a ton of reliable sources), and a photo of the tornado clears up what that adjective actually means. Random proof of that can even be seen during Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (happened days ago). One of the first news articles I found in a generic google search of "Kentwood" & "tornado" (one of the stronger tornadoes during the outbreak), I found WVUE-DT publishing an article literally titled "Large tornado tears through small town outside Kentwood; no injuries reported". Hopefully that better explains what the Commons consensus was on tornado photos. In reality, only free-to-use photos actually prevent a single (not multiple) NFC tornado photo from being used in an article/section on a tornado, given the fact adjectives are always used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. Jay Cubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. E_F⁵ 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. Jay Cubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Will do. To clarify on the NFCC8 thing, we use "similar" planes because they are the same model, correct? The paint job may be different, but the model is similar. Tornadoes don't come in "models" ("classifications" vary wildly, a wedge tornado can be anywhere from 0.5 to 2.6 miles wide) and I genuinely couldn't tell you two tornadoes that look exactly alike or are of the exact same width. Sure, the color of the tornado (paint job) may be the same, but no tornadoes are created equal. Saying "a tornado that looks kind of like the one that hit so-and-so" in an infobox is just doing a disservice to readers. That also doesn't account for the fact that we are already seriously lacking on free and recent tornado photos. E_F⁵ 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Weather Event Writer Buffs (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this would be delete per policy, but I do agree with the 'similar planes' argument outlined by EF5. I know long discussions have already been had on this per above, but from what EF5 argues I do think the policy should be changed. Cheers! Johnson524 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a low quality image does not improve my understanding of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kesha - Delusional (2025 single cover).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: keep. ✗plicit 23:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork fails per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; its inclusion would not benefit readers of the article, and its coverage within published media has not been met, unlike the original artwork File:Kesha - Delusional.png, which has coverage in media, due to its use of generative artificial intelligence. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More articles are coming out about the change. Keshaanimalcannibalwarrior (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cover art is being changed on every streaming platform and I think simply keeping both of the single artworks on the page could be good idea. Jack153901 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new cover art has more meaning than simply being an alternative cover, the article itself addresses it as a point of discussion. Not keeping the new artwork would decrease the understanding of the topic, in my opinion. Also, if we were to keep only one of the artworks, I would vote for the new one rather than the original one. — Artmanha (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the relatively rare incidents where the two covers are the subject of significant commentary which is both reflected in the article and continues to be a subject of discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no valid reason to delete this single cover. While you have tried to remove alternative covers in many articles, not all of them actually violate WP:NFCC#3a & Wikipedia:NFCC#8, as you often assert. Suggest you to reconsider before deleting covers. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The change in cover art is heavily discussed in lots of online sources, should definitely not be deleted. --Sricsi (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both are discussed in the article and in media. ~AnotherFriendlyHuman (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 27 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:Le Tigre - Deceptacon (sample 2).ogg

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, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These files are used at Le Tigre#Deceptacon copyright lawsuit to explain a copyright lawsuit around the band Le Tigre. However this does not meet WP:NFCC8 (contextual significance). This media might be significant if the article topic were the lawsuit itself, but are not particularly significant to the topic of the band itself - the lawsuit is just one small piece of their history Consigned (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both In this instance, the text alone makes this situation clear for a relatively minor disagreement. NFC is unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 21 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.