Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:20, 5 August 2013

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4

Pilot (The Cosby Show)

Compare two images below: the TV Guide ad and the screenshot. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

I replaced this image with File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg. The promo image is more significant to the episode than the screenshot of the father-son monopoly thing itself. The article Pilot (The Cosby Show) does not mention critics' reviews on the monopoly money, and the text about the scene is already understood when reading it. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have restored the image, which depicts the theme of the show. The replaced image is merely a TV Guide ad. It is not the promotional poster of the series premier and it is a shoddy version of the ad. If we had a quality version of the series premier poster that would be a consideration for an image of the theme of the show. File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg is not really preferable to the screencapture of the theme of the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already added ads in Give Me a Ring Sometime and Hill Street Station. Also, the monopoly money thing is a subplot, as the whole episode itself introduces the father, the mother, the son, and two daughters. Another daughter is added in the middle of the first season. And other characters are added later then. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, poor quality is not sufficient reason to remove the image. I learned in the past that improvement of the image can be made if not now. Nevertheless, I prefer the ad over the scene of the subplot/subtheme. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ads are better than nothing in the two cases presented. This article has a thematic depcition as an image already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text is already understood without the image. Well, you can call it an add; First Person Shooter (The X-Files) calls its own image a poster. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can use a free image of Monopoly money in the body text, not the infobox. In the prior discussion, which closed as "no consensus", proponents pointed out the image's insignificance and ineffective attempts to improve reader's understanding of the episode. Supporters of the image say the same reason you are saying, but I don't know why it leaned to "no consensus". In fact, "delete" should have been done. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The screencap depicts the theme of the show. That is what NFCC is for. Unless we have a better image, stay with the screen cap, IMO. I am open to third party opinions on this. Whatever other people say is fine by me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg

Not in use. There is disagreement as to which picture belongs in the article among two editors. Whichever is less desirable should be deleted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The effort to find the premier ad is appreciated. I welcome third party opinions on which image is preferable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a very desirable picture. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the ad is not very desirable does not justify a reason to keep the other image. Can you vote on the other image, the screenshot? --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep - Although "not very desirable" and not a screenshot, an ad is better than either nothing or a meaningless identifiable screenshot. I don't know how the screenshot that barely shows the Monopoly money passes WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance". Per WT:FFD, a screenshot must be more than an identifiable image. Frankly, the article doesn't mention critics' comments on the Monopoly money; just brief father-son moments. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the image is not used yet. However, I can assure you that the image is more useful than the screenshot. Why else should it be deleted? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denno.ogg

Health concern. The information for this says "and the low resolution and quality of the clip reduces the risk of seizures." Reduces but does not eliminate. On the talk page someone said you still have a one in four thousand chance. Well, more than four thousand people view the article it is in every month, so that is a legitimate threat. And you won't know if you are vulnerable to seizures until it happens. Dream Focus 11:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As this video may potentially be harmful to your health I feel that it outweighs any encyclopedic value. Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I watched the video and nothing happened. But, even with the health issue, this is a clear failure of WP:NFCC#8. How hard is it to visualize "rapidly blinking blue and red strobe lights"? Beerest355 Talk 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic non-free content. WP:NOTCENSORED . Linking to it, but not embedding it, can be used to reduce the chance of people pressing play, unless they are adamant they want to risk it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alter - It seems more likely that slowing it by a factor of 4 would be the mitigating factor which prevents the seizure possibility. I've seen this unaltered and I've seen it slowed down and I greatly prefer the slowed down version for medical reasons. This would result in stripping some aspect of the scene out and focusing on the original flashing red and blue which was so jarring that it is surprising animators actually let it pass. This file serves a purpose and the seizure case was well-documented, I'm surprised it hasn't been slowed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image caption is enough to warn people of potential risk of seizures. We should not censor something simply because that there is a risk of someone being complacent. Motor vehicles are not banned from roads because people die in them. It is the responsibility of the reader, not us, to ensure the reader's own safety. We have articles such as exit bag and images such as File:Hangmans Noose Howto.jpg that teach readers how to commit suicide; we do not delete such content because it may be objectionable. Wikipedia has no legal obligation to ensure the safety of its readers, in regards to this particular situation. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Part of a notable event. The fact that it may pose a health threat does not outweigh its utility in describing what has happened. Although, it would be better not to have a fansub version.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be different if it was a gif that was always blinking, but this is a video, so unless clicked, it poses no threat, and as Belinsquare pointed out, the caption warns anyone first.--十八 07:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not this again. The video has been already discussed to death in the Dennō Senshi Porygon talk page, and elsewhere, and consensus has always been for the image to be included. First of all, as anyone can see by reading the article, it is not that likely that the video itself caused the seizure -it is more akin to a case of mass hysteria. Second, there is plenty of warning in the caption. Third, we do not censor information because this can be harmful to readers. We're not the readers' nannies. We're here to provide information. If this information is dangerous to them, or if they abuse it, that's not our concern at all. Fourth, despite the nominator handwaving about the number of readers accessing the article every day, I've yet to know a case of someone getting a seizure from the low-resolution, tiny video hosted here. Fifth, it is clearly essential to understand the topic -most of the article talks about that video section and its (alleged) consequences, and as such the article would suffer massively without it. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep comments pre-suppose that users are literate-enough and sensible enough not to click the video. But for children googling for Pokemon/porygon (or whatever) who are smart enough to start the video but not smart enough to know what "may cause seizures" means, this would be a hazard. If there is a risk of this video having an adverse health effect, it is just common sense and decency not to include it here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is covered by our standard disclaimer, which even includes the possibility of media-induced seizures explicitly. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit do you think applies to the case of a minor who watches a potentially seizure-inducing video after having started it inadvertently? By my reading this is not a case covered by the disclaimer. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like a minor who finds images depicting a sexual act? I believe the foundation has dealt with that topic plenty of times. And if push comes to shove, slowing the video to meet the medical standards would be the best option instead of deletion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there can be any number of spurious "think of the children!" type arguments that might unduly censor content. But in this case we are dealing with a children's topic which shows up on page 1 of a google search for "porygon" and which apparently carries a serious physical risk. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof whatsoever that the video clip herein discussed, at this size and resolution, carries any health risk. And there are medical papers that show it is dubious that the original, full-resolution one carried a significant risk as well. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is obvious proof that the original caused people to be hospitalized from it. Whether the number of injured children are considered "significant" or not to some, isn't relevant, some were still harmed. There is no proof that reducing the size and resolution will 100% eliminate that threat, otherwise we wouldn't have the warning at all. Some have stated some are still affected. Need someone with medical knowledge to verify this one way or the other. Dream Focus 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are very relevant instead -this discussion would be very different if 90% of kids were clearly affected by the video and we had dozens of cases triggered by this version of it. Instead, we do not have a single report of this version of the video causing any harm, despite it being on WP since 2009. But even if it could be shown to cause some harm in a tiny minority of the population, this wouldn't change the thing much. We have a List of suicide methods that I am almost sure it inspired people in terminating their own life. Yet we do not censor information because it may have some inconvenient consequence. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note there are related discussions at Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon#seizure_video_up_for_deletion, Wikipedia_talk:MEDICINE#Denn.C5.8D_Senshi_Porygon_seizure_video. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Just because there are legal disclaimers, does not mean we should deliberately set out to post a video that could induce seizures. I wonder if the other articles about this series have videos. Per Alexbrn's comment above, delete. Still frame is an appropriate and harmless substitution. There is no reason to include the video that is not also provided by the still frame, and per WAID's comment above it has other advantages over the video in terms of accessibility and copyright.. (Comment copied from WT:MED#Dennō Senshi Porygon seizure video, Lesion (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep WP:disclaimer, WP:notcensored, besides, it says, in the caption that it may cause seizures. this is like saying that we should delete every image on commons that one might find objectionable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Disclaimer & WP:Notcensored, "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures",

The caption makes it clear that it does cause seizures so it's common sense not to click it .... -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In moral terms, the good we do by teaching people about what sets off these outbreaks should clearly outweigh the very small chance someone goes past the warnings. Optionally you could add a few seconds of block lettering to the front of the video clip "EPILEPTICS DO NOT WATCH" etc. but it seems overwrought. Legally, well, the Internet offers amusing, educational, and artistic content like encyclopediadramatica.se/Epilepsy . And practically ... surely there is a way to write a browser plug-in that checks animated images/video for problematic flashing before it is displayed! Lock your own front door to keep people from coming in, not every neighbor's door to keep them from going out. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If some kid clicks on the image and has a seizure, they having no way of knowing they were vulnerable until they clicked it to see, would that bother any of you that want to keep this at all, or would you convince yourself it wasn't your fault? Do you think the disclaimer will honestly keep Wikipedia from being held accountable? In America, it is illegal to broadcast things like this on television or in films. Is there a law against it being on the internet? Dream Focus 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- would that bother any of you that want to keep this at all - Speaking for myself no, it wouldn't bother me at all. It's not my fault that a tiny minority of the populations happens to get health problems from educational video, and there were warnings. If that is your reasoning, you should also ask people selling peanuts if they feel guilty because, you know, an allergic kid could eat one despite warnings. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "If some kid clicks on the image and has a seizure" - Children should not be unsupervised on the internet. If a child comes across hardcore tentacle rape porn on the internet, who is at fault? The online file host, or the parent? Goddamn, back when I was a kid, at a time when I spent my childhood using Internet Explorer 4.0 on a 56k modem instead of kicking a soccer ball, I had a responsible parent watch over me. Are people really that complacent nowadays? "Is there a law against it being on the internet?" - Better go contact your local congress representative and inform them of this pressing issue, because as of present there are naught. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but but a warning directly underneath, or — better yet — put the video in a collapsible box with a warning, as such:

Warning: May cause seizures
File:Denno.ogg

— Richard BB 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have text right under the video stating that the video has been reported to trigger seizures. Since we already have have a warning that clearly identifies the issue I see no reason to add something like the collapsible box.

Keep: I'm open about reducing the strobing, but the content and medical disclaimers do put ourselves in a better position. More so than Channel 4, whose premiere of the film Kick Ass on Saturday came without any disclaimer of strobing, when that film, at the climax of the second act, does have a rather well-known example of it. Beyond that, my arguments in 2010 carry on to here. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonings by Ryulong and Juhachi. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potential health risks outweigh any slight encyclopedic value of the file. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:COMMONSENSE, and most important our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If someone is prone to seizures then they should know to read the Wikipedia disclaimers first just like they would any other website. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm primarily concerned about WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Compared to a still image from that scene, the video just doesn't add anything significant. As someone said above, How hard is it to visualize "rapidly blinking blue and red strobe lights"? This will not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (italicized words being mandatory requirements under our policy, not just optional suggestions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my WP:AGF is shaking but: Is this a serious comment? The article discusses a dynamical feature of the episode, that is the fast red/blue light flickering. And well, yes, it is quite hard to understand how fast and strong is the flickering there by simply reading it or viewing a still image. I'm still not able to tune my imagination on a written frequency in Hertz and recreate the correct sensorial impression in my head -nor, I suspect, can most readers. The video obviously conveys essential dynamical visual information that no description or still image could even remotely substitute.-- cyclopia^speak! 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cyclopia 100% here. I'd say that there are few things where the inclusion of a non-free image/video are more justified than here. — Richard BB 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If someone decides to click on the video to watch it even after being repeatedly told that it can cause seizures then we can't consider ourselves responsible. This is a famous incident and it is best understood by seeing the video. Stills and text can't convey the issue as well as the video.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been nominated before for the same reason: File:Denno.ogg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2012 October 31#File:Denno.ogg (31 October 2012 – 7 November 2012) with a keep result. WP:RISK also applies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious health reasons. No other seizure-related articles contain videos known to or capable of causing seizures, neither should Dennō Senshi Porygon. Content of the video is already described in detail in the article, so visual representation in the form of a video is not needed. ComfyKem (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can't stupid-proof everything in the universe, y'know. There has to be a line in the sand where if something is labeled (and if we need to make the label bigger/prominent, fine) "Warning, X is unsafe" and someone does X anyways, the responsibility transfers to them. Not us. WP:NFCC concerns are an irrelevant distraction, as the article clearly discusses the content in question. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is necessary. First, a person who sees the video would clearly see the text on the bottom (which I mentioned in a earlier comment) and then decided to play the video. This is not something that a person would simply stumbled upon. It should also be noticed (as mentioned in the talkpage) that the video is in a lower resolution than the original and takes up less of the screen meaning that the risk of seizures is lower to begin with. Finally, the fact that there have been no reports of seizures for anyone watching the Wikipedia video strongly indicates that the measures already in place have greatly reduced the seizure problem. For those reasons I don't think this needs to be deleted.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucio Dalla (Taken in 2011).jpg

Replaced by File:Salvioniedalla.JPG. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucio Dalla In 2010.jpg

Replaced by File:Salvioniedalla.JPG. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow Prince Movie soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heer Raanjha, 1970 film soundtrack album cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jetsons Movie Soundtrack.png

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ali G movie Soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is very similar to the poster at the top of the article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chillerama Zom-B-Movie Soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caillou's Holiday Movie Soundtrack Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanamizuki Original Movie Soundtrack Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wigstcd.jpeg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracesounds.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trailerparkboysmoviesoundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scary Movie 5 Soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the poster in the main infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scary Movie 5 Score.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moshidora movie original soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:To Save A Life Official Movie Soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the image in the main infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Il ritorno di Ringomusic.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaar Din Ki Chandni Album Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gali Gali Chor Hai Album Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Housefull 2 Album Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mengunssounds.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:London soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Although the FUR claims to be for an article about the soundtrack, that page name redirects to the article about the film. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWildThornberrys-Soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Digimon soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adventuresofthegreatmousedetective-soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya Album Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head Cleaning Cartridge Tape1.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not needed for understanding the article. Violates WP:NFCC#10: not an audio soundtrack and not used to "illustrate the article on the movie" as claimed in the FUR as the image isn't used in an article about a movie in the first place. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaadhal Solla Vanthaen - 00 - Front.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zindagi Tere Naam Album Cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecstasyost.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecstasysoundtrack3.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes cover art.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Power Rangers The Movie Cover.PNG

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Power Rangers The Movie Cover US.PNG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pokémon The Movie 2000 Original Motion Picture Score (Italian).jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armageddon - The Album (CD Cover).jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amgsoundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:007TSWLMsoundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:TSWLM77.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twelfth Doctor.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 as F7 by Mattgirling (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of Peter Capaldi, the actor who has been cast as the Twelfth Doctor but does not show him in character, and is not therefore valid fair use for the Twelfth Doctor article. January (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This should be speedily removed. We have a free image of Capaldi already File:Peter_Capaldi.jpg --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as replaceable fair use as File:Peter_Capaldi.jpg would give the same understanding. An image of him in character would be acceptable, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scary Movie OST.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. The article title in the FUR is a redirect to the article about the film and the FUR claims that the image is used in the article's main infobox, but the main infobox contains a different image instead, so the image seems to violate WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:StrangerThanFiction(soundtrack)2.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:StrangerThanFiction(soundtrack)1.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holud Pakhir Dana poster2.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Series7OST.gif

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Also violates WP:NFCC#3a as it is substantially similar to the infobox image. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The princess bride 20th anniversary edition dvd.jpg

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. The image File:Princess bride.jpg is sufficient for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boy Pick Up album cover.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heroes Fall - Music Inspired By The Motion Picture.jpg

Redundant to File:Iron Man 3 soundtrack.jpg, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film has two separate and distinct soundtracks. See Tron: Legacy (soundtrack), The Avengers (soundtrack), Frankenweenie (soundtrack), and The Lone Ranger (soundtrack) for comparison. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had no idea about that MOS at the time, and I see nothing out there to support a standalone article that could justify image retention, so delete away. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raaz 3D (soundtrack).jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince soundtrack.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *'''Delete''' for obvious health reasons. No other seizure-related articles contain videos known to or capable of causing seizures, neither should [[Dennō Senshi Porygon]]. Content of the video is already described in detail in the article, so visual representation in the form of a video is not needed. [[User:ComfyKem|ComfyKem]] ([[User talk:ComfyKem|talk]]) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - You can't stupid-proof everything in the universe, y'know.  There has to be a line in the sand where if something is labeled (and if we need to make the label bigger/prominent, fine) "Warning, X is unsafe" and someone does X anyways, the responsibility transfers to them.  Not us.  [[WP:NFCC]] concerns are an irrelevant distraction, as the article clearly discusses the content in question. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' I don't think this is necessary. First, a person who sees the video would clearly see the text on the bottom (which I mentioned in a earlier comment) and then decided to play the video. This is not something that a person would simply stumbled upon. It should also be noticed (as mentioned in the talkpage) that the video is in a lower resolution than the original and takes up less of the screen meaning that the risk of seizures is lower to begin with. Finally, the fact that there have been no reports of seizures for anyone watching the Wikipedia video strongly indicates that the measures already in place have greatly reduced the seizure problem. For those reasons I don';t think this needs to be deleted.--[[Special:Contributions/70.49.82.207|70.49.82.207]] ([[User talk:70.49.82.207|talk]]) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I don't think this is necessary. First, a person who sees the video would clearly see the text on the bottom (which I mentioned in a earlier comment) and then decided to play the video. This is not something that a person would simply stumbled upon. It should also be noticed (as mentioned in the talkpage) that the video is in a lower resolution than the original and takes up less of the screen meaning that the risk of seizures is lower to begin with. Finally, the fact that there have been no reports of seizures for anyone watching the Wikipedia video strongly indicates that the measures already in place have greatly reduced the seizure problem. For those reasons I don't think this needs to be deleted.--[[Special:Contributions/70.49.82.207|70.49.82.207]] ([[User talk:70.49.82.207|talk]]) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Lucio Dalla (Taken in 2011).jpg]]====