Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 10 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. And really, no need for the condescension. czar 15:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Tom (cropped).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Giano II (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, grainy - delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Obsoleted by File:King Tom near Dalmeny House (geograph 1694132).jpg and other files in Commons:Category:King Tom - Joseph Boehm. If desired in the future the two versions in this image's history are available as File:King Tom.jpg and File:King Tom (cropped).jpg. Kelly hi! 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'KeepIf User: Kelly had the brain cell of a gnat. She would notice that the statue in this image is in a different location to that of the other photograph of it. There are very good and historical reasons for the change of locations (some 600 miles apart) which may well one day make an interesting article. People like Kelly do immeasurable harm to this project. Giano (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly is now making bad faith edits to articles, in an attempt to say that files are 'unused' [3]. Giano (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith involved, I just believe the newer photo is of better quality. Of course that may be hard for me to determine with my gnat-brain! I've opened a discussion at Talk:Mentmore and Crafton Studs. Kelly hi! 12:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of the horse above its grave is far more suitable than the horse pictured in a random foreign landscape. Giano (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree now that the description has been updated. Withdrawn. Kelly hi! 13:46, 10 September 2016 (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.
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: Keep only File:Cirqus Voltaire pinball.png, delete others Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CV pinball circus marvels.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gregturn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Cirqus Voltaire (Ringmaster).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gregturn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Cirqus Voltaire pinball.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gregturn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This composition—artwork in a pinball machine—is protected by copyright and we have no evidence of creator permission to use the listed license czar 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, just to be clear, the problem is essentially with the license? That is, they might be okay if they were using the non-free 2-d/3-d art tag, plus non-free use rationales for each? If those were added, they seem like they'd meet WP:NFCCP. --tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two copyrights to consider: the photographer's and the original artist's (the photographer is making a derivative work of the artist who drew the image). If kept, we should continue to note that the photographer used a free license. If the plan is to keep the images as fair use, each would need a very specific rationale. If the purpose is to depict the subject, the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria requirements would allow one "overview" image for purposes of identification, but the other images would need to have some extenuating reason. For example, if sources discuss a specific visual aspect of the layout that cannot be explained in words. The short version is that there is likely only cause for keeping one of the images as fair use (File:Cirqus Voltaire pinball.png with appropriate rationale) and deleting the others. czar 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there though? It's hard to see how Gregturn's photos would be considered transformative enough to be protected as derivative works, though I can see noting the license he wanted to use. And I think the other two images (of small but prominent sections of the pinball machine) really add to the text of the article - I wrote up a few fair use rationales. See what you think. --tronvillain (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tronvillain, yes, if you can distinguish the pinball artist's work, the artist automatically holds a copyright to that design by act of its creation. The photo is "derivative" of that artist's work/copyright. I think the FUR for the full machine as "visual identification" would be fine if the main infobox cover art didn't already exist for that purpose. The other FURs are superfluous—there isn't any sourced commentary that requires a non-free image to illustrate what cannot be depicted through words alone. (WP:NFCC#8) czar 11:22, 15 October 2016 (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.

Ship Simulator Professional

edit

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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Controller final.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Densha-de-go.com (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of copyrighted screenshot. If the screenshot was blanked out, the image would have no further purpose. Recommend delete. czar 18:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree - the caption shows that this photo is used to illustrate gameplay. The screenshot is thus an incidental inclusion, not the primary subject of the photo. Keep. Deryck C. 17:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay almost always refers to the player's interaction with the graphics onscreen, not their interaction with the controller. But I could accept this image with the on-screen details scrambled (if it truly is de minimis). However, note also that the uploader is blocked and has a long history of file permission issues (see talk page). This image is in fact their only remaining upload after what appears to be over a dozen deletions. It's also web-sized and has no EXIF data, so I doubt its provenance as a personal image. czar 11:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not useful, but only because we have a better picture of the controller which appropriately free licence already, making this one offer no benefit to readers. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:00, 19 October 2016 (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.