Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 16

April 16

File:Komagata Maru Charterer Gurdit Singh and Passengers Landing.jpg

A cropped lower resolution version of File:Sikhs aboard Komagata Maru.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Let's delete File:Komagata Maru Charterer Gurdit Singh and Passengers Landing.jpg UpDater (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynyrd SkynyrdFreeBirdSolo.ogg

De-PRODding reason from an admin was this: The article states that this is one of the greatest guitar solos of all time. It IS the song, the heart of it. This implies that, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, critical commentary should suffice to save the sample from deletion. However, even with critical commentary, I still doubt that the whole sample itself is significant contextually to the whole nine- or ten-minute song.

The whole sample sure is a portion of "one of the greatest guitar solos", but the whole song (recording) is not about that guitar solo, even as "greatest" as it may have been. The song has lyrics lasting five, six, or seven minutes.

Furthermore, the phrase "one of the greatest guitar solos" and the whole sample provide the same role: driving a reader into seeking the whole, full studio recording... or live one of the same song and letting the reader decide for oneself. Moreover, the 30-second sample either doesn't fully explain why the whole guitar solo is the "greatest" or is more about the portion itself than about the whole guitar solo (or the whole song).

Or, words are enough per WP:FREER to explain (what) the whole song (is about) or... (that) the whole song (is more than just the "greatest guitar solo"), and the sample itself doesn't need to be in the project. Speaking of "greatest", "greatest" can be subjective, yet the sample isn't that adequate, in my opinion. The whole recording at any length does the better explanation than any sample/portion.

In short, even meeting "critical commentary" rule doesn't absolve the sample's potential failures to comply with the whole NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Brown - It's a Man's Man's Man's World.ogg

De-PRODded for this reason: Annulation de suppression d'audio. L'audio permet au lecteur de connecter la chanson avec l'article en associant le titre à un extrait de la chanson. Helping readers identify the James Brown song It's a Man's Man's Man's World isn't sufficient to absolve the sample's potential failures to be contextually significant the whole song (recording). Rather it does the same thing that free text can do: drive readers into seeking and listening the whole song.

Furthermore, nothing in the sample indicates why omitting the sample from the article would harm readers' understanding of the whole song, honestly. Regardless of familiarity and legacy, I hear lyrics, and music simultaneously, and I hear performance. However, the content given is all I hear, and I still haven't found the sample to fulfillingly help me understand the whole song. Oh, and understanding ≠ identifying. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Get Ready For This - 2 Unlimited.ogg

De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article. Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.

The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The brief clip is shorter than most fair use audio commonly featured on Wikipedia, and I would argue is fairly representative of the entire song. The lorax (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the sample isn't the main issue. The riff heard in the sample doesn't provide enough context about the entire song unless reliable sources prove its significance. So far, I haven't found sources substantially covering the riff and its significance to the song. George Ho (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg

There is a version below TOO in the file history. Surely if the album can be represented by something non-copyrightable then the recent non-free upload with the same name fails WP:NFCC#1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up "TOO", so here is a link for anyone who's not a FFD regular: WP:TOO.
Is it only the recent version at this file name, of a B&W photo in a pink frame, that would be deleted? thereby reverting this image to the square of pink with a few Chinese characters in the centre? I have no objection to that outcome. I don't think I'd ever seen the framed image before the 2023 Pitchfork article cited in Please Myself. E.g. auction listings for this album generally show either the pink square or a different colour photo shown here. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is indeed what I'm requesting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkon21: when uploading images, I think it would be good practice to use a new file name, rather than making it a new version of an existing file if it does not look the same. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-Ikettes.jpg

Could be from https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ike-and-tina-turner-backup-singers-and-recording-artists-news-photo/117646990 because it is in the same format but covered with a watermark. May fail WP:GETTY. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source even says it is from Michael Ochs archives. [1] TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Gabriel & Kate Bush - Don't Give Up.ogg

File was de-PRODded per "critical commentary" rationale. However, per WP:NFC#Audio clips, NFCC also applies. As far as the sample is concerned, I hear lyrics, vocal performances, and music. Nothing within the sample indicates why, per WP:NFCC#8, omitting the whole portion harms understanding of the whole song, which has been redone a few or several times by later artists. Furthermore, the free text already helps readers learn what the whole song is about, meaning the sample fails to be irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, the sample might also fail WP:NFCC#3a for doing the same role that free text does: drive readers into seeking and then listening various recordings of the same song. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]