Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 22

< April 21	April 23 >

April 22

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg

(nominated by George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

This file was recently uploaded as being in the public domain to replace the same file, File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, that has been labeled as being fair use since it was uploaded in 2003. I am not sure, which is correct, but I feel it needs a definite answer here. Aspects (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader. Image was widely published by its proprietor without a copyright notice in 1968 and therefore became public domain ({{PD-US-no-notice}}). It just seems that nobody has noticed this fact before. Toohool (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toohool, Why would public domain photos be here instead of at c:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: In this case, because Commons requires that images be free in the US and in the country of origin. As explained on the file description page, the image is probably copyrighted in its country of origin (whichever country that may be) at least until 2055. Toohool (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fair use. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Want You Back NSYNC Video.png

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: speedy delete per WP:G7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the statement as part of the purpose of using the music video screenshot, "The screenshot accurately illustrates the description used in the article about the music video in question," the content at the section I Want You Back (NSYNC song)#Music video is too brief to justify using the screenshot of NYSNC in the original music video of "I Want You Back". Also, the words can be already understood without the screenshot, and deleting the screenshot wouldn't affect such understanding, anyway. The screenshot would fail WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation mentions images in general, not specifically music videos. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – from original uploader: I'm fine with the removing the image based on the discussion from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 20. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2020 (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:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png

This non-free image is being used in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World#Music alongside freely licensed images (File:Emily Haines (Metric).jpg and File:Metric live at Washington, DC 2006.jpg) of Emily Haines, whose "clothing, performance and style" was the basis of the character Envy Adams. This file was initially tagged by JJMC89 with {{Di-fails NFCC}} for violating WP:NFCC#8, which was deleted by me after seven days. The uploader Kingsif and I discussed the merits (please give the discussion a read for context) of the inclusion of the image and ultimately reached an impasse. As such, I felt that it would be best to defer this case to the community to determine whether or not there is consensus to include this image in the article. Ə XPLICIT 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The free image on the left on the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World page is good enough to illustrate the character of Envy Adams. Nonfree image in the middle is superfluous. Abzeronow (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free image of the character. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The free image of Emily Haines seems to sufficiently illustrate the inspiration for the character. An image of the character is nice to have, but doesn't significantly increase understanding that Haines is the inspiration for the character. Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment below also addresses this :) Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image seems very clear-cut in not violating non-free image use policy, it has a very clear function of depicting something critical that is entirely visual in nature. It is one in a set of images that shows an inspiration-result relationship, the kind of visual representations that I have never seen a non-free file be challenged (let alone deleted) for before. As said above, there are images of Emily Haines, the real inspiration for the character Envy in both appearance and physicality. Just showing the free images of Haines (of which there are plenty on Commons) shows the subject of inspiration, but given that Envy is entirely based on her, we can and should make a direct comparison (not all inspiration-inspired things can, if the inspiration is not massive); as Envy is actually part of the film that the article is about, using the images is a useful visual comparative to illustrate how the character was influenced. In trying to keep this short, I'll summarize this block by saying that the images of Haines alone do not actually serve the comparative function that is the best analytical practice and, though showing some part of criticism, without an image of Envy it does not show the effect on the film that is the subject of the (relevant discussion and) article.

There is also a solid precedent for using both inspiration and inspired images in other articles; I still invoke the example on the Captain Marvel (2019 film) article (the first that came to mind, possibly because of the Brie Larson connection, but not the only one). A Good Article, that article uses two non-free images (in section Post-production) to show the appearance of Sam Jackson in a 1997 film and his appearance in CM, which was based on the former. In the same way, Envy in SP is based on Haines and if it is deemed necessary to use the non-free screenshot of CM, why would it not be for an image serving the same function here? Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral (might lean toward "week keep" or "weak delete")~~ - The rationale to enforce WP:NFCC#1 seems very weak to me. Like the uploader said, a free image of Brie Larson would not illustrate the fictional character. However, WP:NFCC#8, part of the main rationale for deletion, which says that elimination of non-free multimedia content would detriment the understanding of the article subject, seems to be main concern. The character Envy Adams herself was briefly mentioned in the Plot section and then in the Music (sub)section. The rest of the paragraph mentioning Envy Adams and Emily Haines also mentions briefly the song "Black Sheep", which may or may not need a music sample of the song rather than a mere image. Then again, the brief description of the song would not sufficiently justify using the music clip.
Back to the image of Envy Adams, right now I'm seeing two sentences describing Envy Adams's (fictional character) performance of the song: "The clothing, performance and style of Metric's lead singer, Emily Haines, is also the basis for the lead singer of The Clash at Demonhead, Envy Adams," and "On her stage performance of the song, Larson said at the UK premiere that she 'had no idea [her] body could move that way'." If I take the image out of the article, then the two free images of Haines would remain. However, once the non-free image is eliminated, a reader would be puzzled about the inclusion of Haines images alone and would question whether those images are needed to be included. Take out the Haines images, and then you'd see just one paragraph describing the versions of "Black Sheep" but also including brief description of visual performances that wouldn't justify using any image, be it a free or non-free image. A reader can click "Emily Haines" or go to c:Category:Emily Haines (Commons) to see her clothing for cognitive comparisons. If the Haines images are needed, then let's be sure that using the images helps the understanding of the context. Also, if the Haines images are needed, then the non-free image of Envy Adams would also be needed as well. On the contrary, if the Haines images are also taken out, the paragraph would be potentially understood without the images, but then the inclusion of one sentence about the inspiration and origin of Envy Adams and the inclusion of Larson's UK premiere quote make the paragraph more puzzling without the image(s).
In conclusion, right now I'm suddenly torn. How the context of the paragraph is understood becomes subjective to a various reader. NFCC is intended to emphasize free content but then would allow acceptable non-free content. While the non-free image meets the "no free equivalent" and "minimal usage" criteria, meeting the "contextual significance" becomes trickier, even when just two sentences visually describing Larson's performance would seem to be the small amount. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: The relevant paragraph has been edited since (I was going to try clean up the soundtrack article, and found sources with info appropriate here). Since you quote it, I thought I'd notify you. (And about the song re. music clip - again, a comparative of Haines vs Larson singing would have to be used, but then there's also "We Are Sex Bob-Omb" from the film which got noms and awards that would be a better candidate for clip inclusion for that reason. I was thinking of putting them on the soundtrack page instead). Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep – Now with improvements made, I can see substantial justification for using the non-free image. Whether one of the Haines images is sufficient enough is another story for another discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because it's just passed GA, I'll add that in the review the GA reviewer noted that a free image of Larson that was in the section (at the top, with a caption about her singing, not the visuals) wasn't necessary, with no comment on this image. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, the source is an unauthorized youtube post, therefore a COPYVIO. Second, the meaning of the text is perfectly clear without the nonfree image. Nonfree content should not be used as demnstrative evidence, in effect saying "See! The source is accurate". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the first part, any uploader could just have easily got it from the film directly (but without a source link to post). To the second, it's not being used that way. The discussion is about how the character was made to visually reflect a real person, the image shows that. That's what images supporting critical discussions do. (I don't think I mentioned it before, but at least one of the scholarly sources used in the article, the kind of publication following the same non-free rules as WP, has images of Envy in the film and in the comics compared with an image of Haines. We're in good company.) Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#8, specifically on the second test, in that omission of the image does not harm the reader's understanding. The free images of Emily Haines from Metric give a good idea without seeing the film's screenshot of what Envy may look like. While having the image of Envy does enhance the reader's understanding (first test of NFCC#8), the omission does not harm it, so it should be removed. --Masem (t) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine questions for Masem relating to this comment: without the screenshot, aren't the images of Haines in effect a 'take our word for it she looked like this', which is a bit OR? Since the discussion is about the comparison, too, isn't it an oversight to not provide that comparison, even if the Haines images could illustrate the physical attributes on their own? (I'll just assume discussion is fine here) Kingsif (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you have sources that say her looks were used for the character's design. Yes, you're not showing the character, but you're giving a couple images for the reader who has not seen the move to extrapolate what Envy may look like. --Masem (t) 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Best of Volume 1 (Silverchair album - cover art).jpg

Very similar to standard cover. No need for second piece of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How similar? It describes a different, albeit related, product, and includes the text, Complete Videology Plus Emotion Pictures. This signifies that it is the DVD album. The lower image in the infobox could be moved to a new infobox for the DVD section, which is described below the CD/cassette album of similar name. This lower image allows readers to determine that they have the group's music videos and not just their audio tracks if they used the upper "standard" image alone.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Throwing Muses bw promo.jpg

There's an updated photo. No need for fair use. PROD denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NFCC 1, as there are freely licensed images of the band. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tearinupmyheartvideo.png

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: speedy delete. per WP:G7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC #8 - there's no critical discussion of this scene or why it's significant, therefore it's purely decorative. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC8, doesn't add anything to understanding of topic. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – from original uploader: I initially added the image based on unsourced information added several years ago, which I have now removed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2020 (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:Nisha Ravikrishnan in Gattimela.jpg

This is an image of a character in an Indian soap opera Draft:Gattimela. This image has been uploaded multiple times on Commons and deleted multiple times, so there's some history. The FUR mentions only the actresses page, not the show, and the show article (when not in draft space) should have the show title screen not this image. My understanding of Wikipedia's WP:NFCC is that non-free images of a living person generally are not allowed if used only to illustrate that person. That appears to be the case here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breast development in a transgender woman.png

Suspected WP:NFCC violation: Minimal number of items. Articles should have only one non-free image, if one or the other can convey the same information (and it can't be replaced by a free equivalent).

Free ones like File:Transgender woman breast.png exist, but it does not seem to come from a (verifiable) peer-reviewed journal source. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but because of NFCC 1, which this clearly fails, as there's already freely licensed images of the depicted topic. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapunzel in Fairy Tale Forest.jpg

Orphaned image, very poor quality, no encyclopedic use. Brought here as it had been nominated at possibly unfree images and I am unsure if Prod would have been appropriate. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]