February 17
File:Parasite Original Score.jpg
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Parasite Original Score.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nairb.Idi9 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The soundtrack's cover art is essentially the same as the movie poster (outside text placement), and thus is duplicate non-free on the page. Masem ( t) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Masem: I am not sure if my ideas are right, but I thought a soundtrack album is independent of some sort from its originating film (the former is a cover for an musical album, the latter is a poster for a film); that is why I also thought a soundtrack album's cover art should not be compared to its originating film's poster art and the two can be treated as separate works. There are instances when the cover art of the soundtrack album is similar to its originating movie's theatrical poster (e.g. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1, The Lion King, Titanic). But I noticed that for these examples of soundtrack albums, they were treated in separate articles and the cover art was used in these separate articles. Should the same be also applied for Parasite? Thank you! — Nairb.Idi9 ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Masem: I would also like to ask if I am incorrect in assuming a soundtrack album's cover art and its originating film's poster art can be treated as separate works; and I want to learn about the specific guidelines regarding cases like this for future edits/uploads. Thank you! — Nairb.Idi9 ( talk) 03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Parasite soundtrack must met notability guidelines, which have more specific guidelines at WP:NALBUMS, so that it can have a standalone article, and in such a case, the cover of the soundtrack would be allowed. But if the soundtrack is not notable on its own but included in the movie's page, and the cover art is essentially the same, then per WP:NFCC#3 the soundtrack cover is unnecessary. -- Masem ( t) 03:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FILMMUSIC: "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for for identification of the topic (WP:NFCI), and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Cover art for soundtrack albums can be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the albums themselves, just as in the case of non-soundtrack albums, but other types of non-free use tends to be must harder to justify and almost always requires that the cover art itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to meet NFCC#8. Many soundtrack covers often simply repeat/reuse the same branding imagery as used for the primary poster art used to identify the film itself which means there's really no new significant encyclopedic information being provided to the reader that couldn't be explained through simple text; thus, NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a are also not really being met. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:Virginia-Wade.jpg
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Virginia-Wade.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83Gulf ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F9 by @ ערן FASTILY 08:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- File claimed to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 and fair use in parallel and missing attribution. Eran ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:Hadden Irving Clark.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Hadden Irving Clark.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vwanweb ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7 by @ Bitter Oil with the reason "Explanation says "research ended without the existence of a free alternative". That is not a justification as fair use." FASTILY 08:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this wouldn't be a speedy deletion. There is no legitimate fair use claim made. The uploader seems to be saying "I couldn't find one". The pictured person is alive (although incarcerated). No part of the article discusses the appearance of this mentally ill man, so an illustration seems unnecessary in any case. Bitter Oil ( talk) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:C I D.jpg
- 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: Redirect. The file nominated is a redirect. If you are trying to nominate the redirect for deletion, list it at WP:RFD. If you are trying to nominate File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg for discussion, please nominate it by that name. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:C I D.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DragonflySixtyseven ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
If ever a file name like this should exist, it should be related to the actual CID and not a film. But File:C I D.jpg is still a bad example for a file name because of how short it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:C I D.jpg and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#File:C I D.jpg. J 947 ( c), at 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg
- 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 as F7 by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Midnightblueowl ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free image of a deceased person used as WP:NFCI§10. There is a free image of the subject however: File:PolPot.jpg. Is the free replacement of too poor quality to be used? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- This was originally a CSD, but I think a proper discussion would be helpful. Here is the original nomination by
Marchjuly:
And keep rationale by Midnightblueowl:Non-free image which fails WP:NFCC#1 ( WP:FREER). Even though Pot is deceased and non-free images of deceased persons are often allowed per WP:NFCC, File:PolPot.jpg is a freely licensed equivalent that can be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification which means this non-free doesn't meet NFCC#1.
(copied here by – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC))We have no freely licensed equivalent that serves the encyclopaedic purpose of primary identification; the example proposed, File:PolPot.jpg, is cropped from another image (File:Nicolae Ceaușescu with Pol Pot.jpg) and is of such poor quality resolution that the figure depicted in it is barely recognisable. This is totally insufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia.
- Comment: While I understand that the quality of non-free image is better, "quality" never seems to have been one of the primary considerations when it comes to WP:FREER type discussions. Articles, even articles about persons living or deceased, aren't required to have infobox images for primary identification purposes, but those that do often have "free" images which could be argued are not of a very good quality and for which a better quality non-free image could be easily found. FREER only discusses quality by saying "an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" which is quite general, but crops of larger free images are one way this is done. In my opinion, this cropped image though not as good as the non-free image of Pot, is of an "acceptable quality" to serve the purpose of primary identification. I get that this is subjective and if the consensus is that the difference is significant enough to justify a non-free files use, then that's fine. However, one thing to consider in such a case then is whether this particular non-free is the best quality image that could be used because if you're going to argue in favor of a non-free solely based on "better quality", then there are lots of possible non-free images of Pol that you can choose from and some might be of a better quality than this particular one. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
February 17
File:Parasite Original Score.jpg
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Parasite Original Score.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nairb.Idi9 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The soundtrack's cover art is essentially the same as the movie poster (outside text placement), and thus is duplicate non-free on the page. Masem ( t) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Masem: I am not sure if my ideas are right, but I thought a soundtrack album is independent of some sort from its originating film (the former is a cover for an musical album, the latter is a poster for a film); that is why I also thought a soundtrack album's cover art should not be compared to its originating film's poster art and the two can be treated as separate works. There are instances when the cover art of the soundtrack album is similar to its originating movie's theatrical poster (e.g. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1, The Lion King, Titanic). But I noticed that for these examples of soundtrack albums, they were treated in separate articles and the cover art was used in these separate articles. Should the same be also applied for Parasite? Thank you! — Nairb.Idi9 ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Masem: I would also like to ask if I am incorrect in assuming a soundtrack album's cover art and its originating film's poster art can be treated as separate works; and I want to learn about the specific guidelines regarding cases like this for future edits/uploads. Thank you! — Nairb.Idi9 ( talk) 03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Parasite soundtrack must met notability guidelines, which have more specific guidelines at WP:NALBUMS, so that it can have a standalone article, and in such a case, the cover of the soundtrack would be allowed. But if the soundtrack is not notable on its own but included in the movie's page, and the cover art is essentially the same, then per WP:NFCC#3 the soundtrack cover is unnecessary. -- Masem ( t) 03:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FILMMUSIC: "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for for identification of the topic (WP:NFCI), and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Cover art for soundtrack albums can be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the albums themselves, just as in the case of non-soundtrack albums, but other types of non-free use tends to be must harder to justify and almost always requires that the cover art itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to meet NFCC#8. Many soundtrack covers often simply repeat/reuse the same branding imagery as used for the primary poster art used to identify the film itself which means there's really no new significant encyclopedic information being provided to the reader that couldn't be explained through simple text; thus, NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a are also not really being met. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:Virginia-Wade.jpg
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Virginia-Wade.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83Gulf ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F9 by @ ערן FASTILY 08:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- File claimed to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 and fair use in parallel and missing attribution. Eran ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:Hadden Irving Clark.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Hadden Irving Clark.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vwanweb ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Originally nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7 by @ Bitter Oil with the reason "Explanation says "research ended without the existence of a free alternative". That is not a justification as fair use." FASTILY 08:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this wouldn't be a speedy deletion. There is no legitimate fair use claim made. The uploader seems to be saying "I couldn't find one". The pictured person is alive (although incarcerated). No part of the article discusses the appearance of this mentally ill man, so an illustration seems unnecessary in any case. Bitter Oil ( talk) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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:C I D.jpg
- 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: Redirect. The file nominated is a redirect. If you are trying to nominate the redirect for deletion, list it at WP:RFD. If you are trying to nominate File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg for discussion, please nominate it by that name. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:C I D.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DragonflySixtyseven ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
If ever a file name like this should exist, it should be related to the actual CID and not a film. But File:C I D.jpg is still a bad example for a file name because of how short it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:C I D.jpg and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#File:C I D.jpg. J 947 ( c), at 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg
- 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 as F7 by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- File:Pol Pot Headshot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Midnightblueowl ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free image of a deceased person used as WP:NFCI§10. There is a free image of the subject however: File:PolPot.jpg. Is the free replacement of too poor quality to be used? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- This was originally a CSD, but I think a proper discussion would be helpful. Here is the original nomination by
Marchjuly:
And keep rationale by Midnightblueowl:Non-free image which fails WP:NFCC#1 ( WP:FREER). Even though Pot is deceased and non-free images of deceased persons are often allowed per WP:NFCC, File:PolPot.jpg is a freely licensed equivalent that can be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification which means this non-free doesn't meet NFCC#1.
(copied here by – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC))We have no freely licensed equivalent that serves the encyclopaedic purpose of primary identification; the example proposed, File:PolPot.jpg, is cropped from another image (File:Nicolae Ceaușescu with Pol Pot.jpg) and is of such poor quality resolution that the figure depicted in it is barely recognisable. This is totally insufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia.
- Comment: While I understand that the quality of non-free image is better, "quality" never seems to have been one of the primary considerations when it comes to WP:FREER type discussions. Articles, even articles about persons living or deceased, aren't required to have infobox images for primary identification purposes, but those that do often have "free" images which could be argued are not of a very good quality and for which a better quality non-free image could be easily found. FREER only discusses quality by saying "an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" which is quite general, but crops of larger free images are one way this is done. In my opinion, this cropped image though not as good as the non-free image of Pot, is of an "acceptable quality" to serve the purpose of primary identification. I get that this is subjective and if the consensus is that the difference is significant enough to justify a non-free files use, then that's fine. However, one thing to consider in such a case then is whether this particular non-free is the best quality image that could be used because if you're going to argue in favor of a non-free solely based on "better quality", then there are lots of possible non-free images of Pol that you can choose from and some might be of a better quality than this particular one. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.