Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 6 - 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: delete. As not meeting NFCC#8, Changing the license does not address this. Whpq (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:NFCC#8 violation? The license template used, {{Non-free 2D art}}, states that the art should be used "for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art, or the school to which the artist belongs". The article, however, does not discuss this particular rendering itself; the image instead serves as an illustration for a concept discussed in the article. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 09:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be {{Non-free promotional}} or {{non-free proposed architecture}} instead? There are some precedents of project concept renderings using the {{non-free 2D art}} template though, such as File:Five_World_Trade_Center_Proposed_Design.jpeg, File:Boeing_RC-1.jpg. Jdubman (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8. A non-free rendering of a streetcar is not required to understand that this was the original plan. Text alone sufficiently describes the idea. ✗plicit 14:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change License to {{Non-free promotional}}. The criteria noted in this license defines images as "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product". That was clearly the intent of the local government agencies issuing the report as the image appears on the front cover of the report to convey the vision for a streetcar project through the core of Downtown Spokane. The image is also tied to a physical location in Spokane along the proposed route (in front of the Spokane Arena), it is not just a generic rendering of a street car. Most importantly, the image meets the qualifications of the non-free promotional template - 1) llustrating the subject in question; 2) is unrepeatable (the project never got built, so no free alternative exists other than this rendering, similar to cancelled building like the Chicago Spire; and 3) on the English-language Wikipedia (it is not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, just local English Wikipedia).
In rebuttal to the above user's opinion, and to reiterate the value of the image, the image is not merely a generic streetcar rendering and contains enough contextual significance to not violate WP:NFCC#8 and additional rationales have been added, which are further elaborated on following this sentence. The image was created specifically for the project in question and shows many contextual attributes that are further discussed in the Wikipedia article. This includes how the project began with big ambitions of a multiple-route transit system that would have included a routing through North Bank neighborhood by the Spokane Arena (as seen in the image), how it began as a fixed-rail electric streetcar with permanent infrastructure like rails and overhead wiring (as seen in the image), and how the mission of the project was intended drive urban development around major nodes (such as the areas around the Spokane Arena, seen in the image). The use of the image in the article also supports contextual contrast, providing visual aid to the article-discussed evolution of the project from an in-road electric streetcar into a single-route bus rapid transit line using battery-electric buses (i.e. no overhead wiring infrastructure and no permanent, in-road rails). Jdubman (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is emerging consensus that the current {{non-free 2D art}} is not suitable. Should this be fixed with relicensing or deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster^talk 01:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicensing to {{Non-free promotional}} would appear to be the appropriate course of action. The given arguments seem to satisfy those requirements of that license. Jdubman (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -FASTILY 03:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More commentary has been added to the article to emphasize the context of the image, which is to show the contrast of project's original vision (larger scope with multiple lines serving key destinations) against the ultimate reality of the project (significantly downsized). Again, a proposed solution could be to relicense to a more appropriate license since this was more of a publicity image rather than "art".

Jdubman (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote has nothing to do with the non-free license tag on the image, and I could honestly care less which variant it is. You seem to have a strange obsession with forcibly inserting this image into City Line (Spokane, Washington). Sure, you've "expanded" the section, but now it's overly detailed and isn't backed up by reliable sources. Let me be blunt with you: please stop, it's not making the article better. -FASTILY 10:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This info and image has now been moved to a new article that expands on the History of high-capacity transit in Spokane, Washington. Given that City Line is not a literal reflection of Spokane's Streetcar Feasibility Study, but rather incorporates its original vision in an evolved form, I agree that this info and image should not be in the main body of City Line's article.

I believe that this image is appropriate to discussing the Streetcar Feasibility Study as a standalone, detailed topic.

Jdubman (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Blurry, poor-quality image. I removed the image from the article for this reason, and was reverted by User:Jdubman. I will await the outcome of this discussion, and will then, if necessary, initiate a discussion on the article talk page about inclusion of this poor-quality image. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a higher-resolution version of the image floating around online that could be used as a starting point to downscale as a replacement. That would at least take care of the compression artifacts. Thoughts?

However, as far as the blurriness, be aware that the streetcar in the background is intentionally blurred as part of an artistic touch to convey speed and motion.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa22e460c-3225-45d0-b712-7f4b09a9e2ba_1304x869.webp

Jdubman (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very nice. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 3D FoP in Ukraine or the US. Proof that the monument is public domain is required. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matri1x-101:I took the photo myself in the spring of 2008 when I was living there on a Fulbright Fellowship. I filled out the form on Wikipedia that granted public use when I uploaded it. What more "proof" do you need? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TaivoLinguist: Hello, I am referring to a provision in copyright law known as freedom of panorama, and specifically, Ukraine's lack of it. Please read Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama § Images of other works and commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine#Freedom_of_panorama. Basically, the statue itself is not public domain (it was erected in 2001 per uk:Пам'ятник Симону Петлюрі (Рівне)). (I know, copyright is annoying but hey, rules are rules.) —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 15:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]