Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armando12 (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 24 March 2010 (→‎File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 17 March 19 >

March 18

File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png

File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Aaa16 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Keep; NFCC 8 and 3a are satisfied by the infobox's read out as well as context added to the article. This is a bad faith nomination due to a previous dispute between Legolas2186 and myself as I intend to include it as part of the article and he keeps trying to find new reasons to remove it as he had with referenced content in a previous dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What? How is "The cover was used for British digital release" justified by the fact that the image is simply describable by words, and fails to add anything to the reader's understanding of the article? I reverted you once only, but felt an FFD should be the actual platform where the nomination can be dealt with. Don't make unnecesary drama. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one escalating this. I am opposing it because I think it has its uses and it is usable per our various image policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please comment on the content and not on how you hate me. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The image has its uses in the article and has text that accompanies it in some form. Articles on albums or singles with more than one version of the album art are allowed to have the multiple versions of the album art within the article and are subject to all other non-free image policies: they can be used if they are being used in an encyclopedic fashion and is being used where text alone would not be able to convey the aspects of the subject of the image and the article will not be as good without said image. Just because you believe that it can be described in a single sentence does not mean the article could not use the image to make it better.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not against multiplae usage of album/single cover art within the article. I'm against images, which can be described by text, which is clearly the case with this one. Why use a non-free image when text can act as its substitute? --Legolas (talk2me) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing an image with text is WP:OR. Having the image improves the article as a whole, as opposed to omitting it just because you believe that descriptive synthesized text is a useful alternative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are in use where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that there weren't "multiple non-free images" until recently; this image is the one that has been used on the article since January. A newer one has since been found which is treated as the official art when both are. Multiple images of the art are needed because for once there are two different versions, where neither the newer or older version on their own would suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why it fails WP:NFCC#3a, when one image is sufficient to illustrate, and the other is a text replaceable. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Because both images are unique from one another, having more than one image makes it better than merely describing the image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The artwork is completely different, plus it says it is similar - but not the same - with the ones used for her other digital singles, such as "Alejandro". Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely different is not a point. Point is it fails to add anything to the reader's understanding of the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete omission does not decrease readers' understanding (and caption seems OR). Hekerui (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an image caption. I've never found one with a reference in it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if there's no reference at all, then we shouldn't use it. Case closed. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The image could be described but not without Original research, unless of course we have a reliable source to describing it. I don't know of any such sources, hence keep. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lemme get this straight, you knew that there's no reliable source describing it and still you insisted on keep? Strange. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You describe the image based on the image itself. That's not original research. Also, from the liner notes from the album we know that Hedi Slimane is the photographer.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the image is your only source then interpretation is original research. Hence you can't describe it, so you have to use the image instead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. The image is indeed present in the album inlays. That's reference enough. And wP:ALT, never requires any reference. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't the article supposed to have the cover of the physical version, this one was used only for the promotional release and it's not available for purchase, all the cd singles(UK/Australia, Europe, and US) have the cover that is already in the article. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Song articles always have the physical covers on the infobox, not the digital covers that are for specific retailers like itunes, and not the physical covers that are for promotional use. Labels always send promotional cd singles to radios before the official release, that cover is not available for puchase, only the colored version is. Here are scans from that cover [1],as you can see in the part that go on the side of the cd, it says: Promo Use Only-Not for Sale. Here is her official website [2], the American itunes [3], the import from the UK/Australia [4], the American remixes release [5], the French cover [6], and the German/Europe cover [7]. All of the physical releases available for purchase use the colored version not the grey one. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your correct to say the physical has the colorful cover. It's not true to say it is only promotional. I know for sure the grey one can be purchased because I have bought it.. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what country does the physical cd have been released with the grey cover? Frcm1988 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None to my knowledge. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the color version is the only physical cover available for purchase. The grey cover was used only for the promotional release, and the digital release in some countries. The physical cover is the only one that go in the infobox, unless the single was only released digitally. The grey cover was used for the first 2 months because American radio started to play the song without it been sended for adds by the label. And people that downloaded the song when the Fame Monster was released got that cover. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the people that buy the single digitally now(since it was released) get that Grey cover. Applies in all countries. CD=Colour cover, Digital=Grey cover. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that is for itunes, there are other stores that give you another covers[citation needed], if you buy the album version they give you the same cover of the album, etc, and the American itunes store don't have the grey cover. My point is that the digital covers should not be in the article, because they tend to be different in every version of the song or retailer. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your buying the album version you get an Album cover, if you buy the single you get the single Grey cover. The single is not release separately in the US yet hence the American iTunes store don't have the Grey cover. Other retailers use the Grey cover. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the album cover should appear in the article too, because that is why the song charted in the first place, because of the downloads when the Fame Monster was released. The single is not released in the US, because singles are not popular anymore, all of the other Gaga songs have been released in the US only with the album versions, and the remixes from the EPs. And please don't put tags in my comments, I don't have to source everything that I wrote, you didn't do it in half of your comments. But if you want to, check the Amazon store, or Zune, they put a different cover according to the version, the Fame Monster cover, The Fame deluxe version cover, the grey cover, the colored cover. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Songs that chart don't get a cover in the article until it's released as a single. Not sure the thinking behind that really, but it is done, see Speechless_(Lady_Gaga_song) for example. So somehow the album cover is not considered relevant to the song/single. I guess the song article is suppose to be about the song and not about the album. I never heard of Zune. A check at amazon confirms they do the same as other UK retailers with the CD being colour and the remixes being Grey. So the only variation I can see from country to country is the cover on the remixes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent)Anyway, I'm glad this conversation has moved on from replacing the image with WP:OR. In some ways it depends how wide of coverage the Telephone (song) article is going to be, if it's going to be a 'C'-class article then it only requires the colour cover. If someone is planning to make it a comprehensive FA-class article then the image will be required. Depends on how you look at it I guess. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's general practice that if an album or song has multiple cover variations, usually it's completely allowable to use those multiple variations in the article unless they are identical except for slight variations. This would be the case if the article used the remix EP cover and the UK/German maxi single cover (which a user attempted yesterday, but I contacted an admin to delete that image as it was huge and unusable). This is not the case between the original/promo/digital single cover and the physical CD single/remix EP cover. Using both images therefore gives more knowledge to the reader of the article, as both are used in an encyclopedic fashion and cannot be replaced by a free equivalent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is not general practice, if you go want the article to be a GA or FA, the additional covers generally end up deleted. By your logic we should also add the vinyl cover, because is different to the cd cover and the digital cover and it gives more knowledge to the reader of the article. So we should add the vinyl covers to all song articles post-1990. Just because there are more than one dosen't mean we have to include everything, look at the Spice Girls for example, they used to release two cds in the UK(single and maxi/single), two in the US, one in Japan, another for Europe, another for Australia, and sometimes one for France and Germany. Many of them were totally different from each other, and that is not including the vinyls. What is encyclopedic about adding all of that, we are not a fansite. The is no information about other than the photographer, all of the cds have it in the liner notes, I don't think that's enough. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What other information would there be about an album cover? What we have is an album cover that was solely used for this particular song for the past two months. Then last week, another one shows up and everyone is up in arms over which should and should not be used, despite the fact that this one (the monochrome one) is used more than the colored one in digital retailers and exists as the promo single cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few thing comes to mind, date, location, wardrobe, make-up, idea behind the cover, concept, why did Lady Gaga choose him to do it, there are lot of things that can be discussed. The cover was used for the past months because American radio put in rotation on their own it wasn't offically released by her label, and the downloads used the images of The Fame Monster for the covers. The same happened with "Alejandro" and "Dance in the Dark" they both have promotional covers, actually one of them in the "Alejandro" article. All of the song articles have the physical cover on the infobox, not the digital or the promotional, unless the song was only released digitally. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) uses the promo cover, which is the one used on her official website and in the digital stores. The physical cover is not used there. What we have is the promotional cover which is the one that is still put forth by her record labels and is what we use on Wikipedia. The colored one is the one used just for the physical CD releases in the British and German markets. All digital retailers use the monochrome cover which is more thoroughly used than the colored cover. The article as it stands uses both covers and uses them in an encyclopedic fashion such that both can be used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that in the Telephone talk page that the red hood version was the cover for Australia and New Zealand, the first countries were the single was released, I even put a website with a picture of the cd,[8], so please read before responding. The colored cover is not just for the UK and Germany, is for every country, Australia/France/rest of Europe/US, like I said I already posted this with the sources up in this discussion. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, please read other's comments. PF doesnot use the promo cover, that cover was first released in teh Oceania regions as the CD single cover. Again, none of you insisting on keep has given any valid reason as to why the image can be kept, since its not a CD, Maxi or Vinyl cover. It still remains teh case taht this image is frankly describable by words. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a description in words, but without a reference it is WP:OR. If you feel you can add a description please add it to the article prose now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was used like two months because it was from the promo, so the image don't fail NFCC 8. TbhotchTalk C. 19:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We generally allow a single image and it's pretty clear that this one, not the "alternate" image should stay. A) It's the main cover B) it was in the article first. I'm honestly at a loss about why we are even having this discussion. Deleting the other image deals with 3a and 8 just doesn't seem to apply. Hobit (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this image is deleted, then all the single cover images should be deleted as well, don't you think? I really don't see the difference with other images of covers.Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telephone Thrust.jpg

File:Telephone Thrust.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by CarsonTaylor (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • I believe this image is fairly replaceable by written prose as eg: "Gaga in an US flag printed bikini". Hence it fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesnot aid in understanding anything more for the reader. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a speedy delete candidate and has been labeled as such. If it's removed from the article and not put back onto any articles it's put up for speedy deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BumpPriceIsRight.jpg

File:BumpPriceIsRight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wikider (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:MissingArticle.jpg

File:MissingArticle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Reflex Reaction (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Diode Modelling Image11.jpg

File:Diode Modelling Image11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amr Bekhit (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned, target article/encyc use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete jpg as png file exists and is in use elsewhere. I don't see a speedy criteria this fits, but we could probably use one. The target article/encyclopedic use should be obvious however. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Huyette Reverse Mohawk.jpg

File:John Huyette Reverse Mohawk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Koddos (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Uploaded without subject's (copyright holder) consent. 128.190.174.91 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone explain this one to me? The image currently there doesn't seem to have anything to do with the title, nor do I see what issue there is with the current picture. Help? Hobit (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diode Modelling Image8.jpg

File:Diode Modelling Image8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Amr Bekhit (notify | contribs | uploads).
    • orphaned, target article/encyc use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete JPG file as png file exists and is in use. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polvo original lineup.jpg

File:Polvo original lineup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Edwardwatkins (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Promo image of a band, no author/date/description/evidence of permission. Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rana bhagwandas.jpg

File:Rana bhagwandas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rizvisa1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Invalid reason for public domain license: "It is public release photograph of Justice Bhagwandas taking oath as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan." Pakistani government images are not automatically free. Hekerui (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: duplicate image was deleted on Commons. Hekerui (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falak sher.JPG

File:Falak sher.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rizvisa1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Invalid reason for public domain license: "It is an official portrait of the Justice of Pakistan and is a publicly released photograph." Pakistani government images are not automatically free. Hekerui (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modernferret28.jpg

File:Modernferret28.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There used to be a lot of debate over whether or not Jennifer Ringley is "notable," and seeing her on a magazine cover establishes her notability. Since she no longer engages in the activities that made her an Internet celebrity, people in the future will need such visual references. Sort of like someone seeing Dagmar on the 1951 issue of Life. Pepso2 (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_18&oldid=351837755"