User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 30



File:Elon Musk&

 * 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: no consensus. Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Elon Musk& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Diego Moya ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

WP:NFCC violation on basis of 8: Contextual significance. The article and section dedicated to the submarine no longer exist. There's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk. This picture isn't necessary to the an article about Musk at all, especially when the vast majority of the content discusses the fallout resulting from his participation in the cave rescue rather than the submarine itself, which is only tangentially related to Musk. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I also just noticed that the fair use rationale is "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art" which doesn't seem to be valid to me. The submarine is almost certainly not copyrighted as a work of art. It's literally just a tube from one of SpaceX's rockets. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The upload wizard described the rationale as "Other 3-dimensional creative work" (engineering are creative works, right?), which "described this item" better than the only other option (architectural work). If a more accurate template doesn't exist, I'll replace the template with a rewrite of its contents to specify a single-purpose engineering device.
 * It is not accurate to say that the "vast majority of the content discusses the fallout" nor that "there's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk", when in the current version the two first sections (those under titles "Tham Luang cave rescue" and "Device viability") are dedicated to physically describe the submarine and its operation. The image has in essence as much or as few contextual significance as it had when it was placed at a stand-alone article, since the content is basically the same. Diego (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You changed it to "unique historic image" but that's still the wrong one. That's for something like File:TrangBang.jpg. I also disagree with your assessment. "Device viability" just discusses commentary on how the submarine was too large to go around corners. The picture is also meaningless for understanding how the submarine works, as it's just a bunch of tubes; the text is more than sufficient. A diagram might be better for that purpose. I also dispute the need to fully understand the structure of the submarine on a page about Elon Musk. It's entirely tangential to the article topic. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that covered the design of the submarine disagree with your personal opinion on what is connected to Elon Musk. I've added several references discussing the video from which the image was taken.   They are certainly not equal to the coverage of File:TrangBang.jpg, but they are proof that this is one of several historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events; otherwise independent reliable sources wouldn't have used it in relation to this incident.
 * By the way, we do have previous WP:Consensus that the topic of the submarine is relevant to the Elon Musk article. Diego (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is in no way a historic image. A historic image means that the image is meaningful historically. I don't think any historians would ascribe that attribute to the image of Musk's submarine. I'm not saying that the submarine is irrelevant, just that the design of the submarine is tangential to the topic of Elon Musk, and therefore a photograph of a bunch of tubes, underwater, from a distance, is not crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk. Therefore, it fails the contextual significance requirement, in adddition to not having a valid fair use claim. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no need in NFCC to have an image "crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk" directly. To be contextually significant it's enough that it's crucial to the understanding of the submarine, which is a topic covered in that article by community decision. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for the relevant policy regarding topics covered as part of articles for larger topics. Diego (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confused by this assertion. WP:PAGEDECIDE doesn't seem relevant to whether an image should be included, whereas NFCC8 states "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". My argument is that the image provides minimal if any additional understanding at all, and that removing the image would not be detrimental to one's understanding of Elon Musk, the article topic. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 23:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is that Elon Musk's submarine is the article topic at that point and section, for all purposes with regard to content guidelines, as determined by the redirect and the merge discussion.
 * We can have different assessments on how relevant the image is to the coverage of the submarine in the article. You have your opinion, I have mine, plus the independent sources discussing the submarine and the video.
 * I disagree with your analysis of policy, in special with your implication that moving the stand-alone article to a section changes its contextual significance. If the image is contextually significant given the text and references in the stand-alone article, that can't change merely because you move the same content and references to a different place - the local context of the image is exactly the same, only now referenced to the larger context of the host article. That's how PAGEDECIDE is relevant.
 * NFCC and NFCI concern themselves with how the subject is covered in reliable sources and how the image is connected with the surrounding text. Neither care about the structure of how we distribute that content among different articles, except to avoid unneeded duplication (and get adequate FURs for needed duplication). In all cases the "article topic" in those guidelines is whatever subject is being discussed with regard to the non-free image used for illustration of that subject. Diego (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It specifically says the article topic, not the section topic. Besides, the section is about the controversy and backlash surrounding Musk's PR campaign, so it's not about the submarine itself. A more relevant image would be the tweet in which Elon Musk attacked the rescuer, or perhaps the letter in which the rescuer's lawyer says he's suing Musk. The shape/build quality or whatever of the submarine is almost entirely irrelevant to both Elon Musk as a whole and to a section that is about a controversy that Musk created when he called someone a pedophile without evidence. Do you see how the submarine is just a minor tidbit in that section? – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We must be reading different articles and policies, then. The article I've seen contains five paragraphs (about half of the section) describing the way the submarine is built, and how its viability or lack thereof as a rescue device (which is what was being tested in the one-off procedure illustrated by the image) affected the perception of the controversy. And the policy literally says " There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic". Diego (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not. Two sentences describe the physical characteristics of the submarine: "Engineers at Musk's companies SpaceX and The Boring Company built the mini-submarine out of a Falcon 9 liquid oxygen transfer tube" and " its design, a five foot long, 12 inch wide sealed tube weighing about 90 pounds propelled manually by divers in the front and back". The rest of the section describes the incident itself. Word count wise, that represents about 5% of the section, and less than 1% of the article. This is absolutely not an image crucial to the understanding of Elon Musk. – FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - it is not required for the reader's understanding of the topic. Even if it were, the submarine is not a work of art.  In the US, copyright does not protect the utilitarian aspect of objects and this submarine is completely utilitarian. Therefore it is replaceable fair use since anyone could take a photo of it.  Or, for that matter - and I know this is a crazy idea - you could contact the company that made this thing and ASK them if they would provide us with a photo licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.  (I know, that's crazy.  But sometimes it works.) --B (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC – The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (Musk), and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The image is also replaceable per B. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFCC in concurrence with what B said above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The visual appearance of the submarine need not be seen in order to reasonably understand the import of the text the image illustrates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Sun &
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: speedy no consensus. Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Sun &#38; Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg">File:Sun & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Philafrenzy ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

should be non-free reduced; claim that "People click through to view the image. They don't just view it in the article" by uploader is nonsense  F ASTILY   05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fastily see my comment on Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair above. These images are not decoration. They serve an encyclopedic function in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides the file size, the use of the painting as the infobox image seems to violate NFCC#8, since it obviously doesn’t visually identify the artist and there’s no critical commentary. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to identify the artist. The image show a piece of her work discussed in the article. I grant you the critical commentary is not extensive but it is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your response indicates you either don't understand WP:NFCC or have never bothered to read it. - F ASTILY   03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Ytoyoda. Enough with the aspersions please Fastily. I have already replied re 3b (minimalism). It does need to be at the minimum size, but not at such low resolution that it ceases to fulfill its encyclopedic function. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the exact encyclopedic purpose that it requires to be available at a larger resolution than the thumbnail that appears in the infobox? If a higher resolution is necessary to view certain details, then why not crop to show the relevant details? And then if there’s an encyclopedic purpose to the image, what the hell is it doing in the infobox where it’s easentially decorative and fails NFCC#8? Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Possible keep, but only if more of the context required by WP:NFCC is provided. However, if the file is kept, it should be reduced per WP:NFCC. I don't think the file should be being used in the main infobox. That image should be for the purpose of primarily identifying the subject of the article. The picture of the work would make sense in the main infobox of an article about the painting itself, but not in one about the artist. This doesn't mean that a non-free image pof the work cannot be used in the artist's article, it just means it should be moved to the body of the article near the content discussing it. The work is just mentioned once by name in the caption, which isn't really the type of contextual connection for non-free use NFCC#8 is looking for in my opinion. The connection should really between article content and non-free image, not the image and its caption. So, it would be better to add the relevant sourced critical commentary content about the work itself or commentary on how this work is considered to be particularly representative of the artist's style to the article body and then move the image near that content in support. Otherwise, I don't think it quite meets NFCC#8. In addition, the source cited (at least the part I can access) makes no mention of the painting itself, so basically the caption appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. NFCC#8 doesn't mean (again in my opinion) to simply write a description of the what the work looks like; it means to show that the work itself was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. If you could basically pick another work by the same artist's and support it with the pretty much the same caption or commentary, then there's no real justification for using any non-free examples of the artist's work. So, if the rest of the source goes into discussion of this particular work, then content summarizing that commentary that goes beyond a simple discription is what should be added to the article.  As for NFCC#3b, I'm not an admin so I cannot see the previous versions of the file; however, the resolution really should only be what is necessary for the article and not what is desired for the file's page. Mention was made above of File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg, but that was reduced by  per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23 and I think something similar should be done here. The source for the file should be more than sufficient for readers looking for a higher resolution of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The image should not be used in the infobox since it is not an image of the article subject. Since the article doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary on the work, WP:NFCC is not satisfied. If the image is kept, it needs to be reduced to < 100,000 px per WP:NFCC. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not OR, the critical commentary was in The Times where they discussed the objects in the work and interpreted them as a critical commentary on western military activity in the Middle East commenting on the "deconstructed" U.S. flag, the Arabic newspaper, and the Sun and Moon which related to their discussion of her "obsession" with astrology also mention later in our article. I moved it all to the body. My point about the size it merely that particularly with artworks, people don't only view the thumbnail they also click through to see the file so it needs to be of reasonable resolution when they do or the encyclopedic function is not served. It's already quite small at 332 × 500 but that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reduce according to our guidelines and keep - there is nothing that you have to see to understand the topic that you can't see in the inline version. Yes, to fully appreciate a work of art, it's nice to have a life-sized version of it, but we're not in the business of hosting high-resolution images of non-free works.  If you want to study a high-resolution version of a copyrighted work of art, you go elsewhere to do that.  No non-free image should be any larger than its size in the article.  Wikipedia articles can be printed, or displayed in other formats where there isn't a "click-through" image description page and so if an image description page is required for the reader's understanding, then something about that process is wrong.  --B (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reduce. The image should be kept, as it's no longer in the infobox but accompanies sourced critical text in the relevant section. The text – "In 2013 she produced Sun and Moon as a commentary on military action in the Middle East which featured a Sun and Moon, a carousel horse, and a tank against a split background with an Arabic language newspaper in the top half and a deconstructed American flag below" – really needs this image to be seen to be intelligible in any meaningful way. But the default thumbnail size (220px) that it's currently rendered in the article is sufficient for this purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Sister Sparrow &
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: no consensus. Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Sister Sparrow &#38; the Dirty Birds - Fight.jpg">File:Sister Sparrow & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mburrell ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Album cover used non-transformatively in an article ABOUT THE BAND. There has been some disagreement over whether to include it. Bringing it here for discussion. B (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well sure, it has been removed from the artist page. The clock should be ticking for seven days, and if I have not created an album article, it can be deleted. Or it can be deleted hastily, and if I create an album page in the next seven days, I will re-upload it and attach it to the album page. Mburrell (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not recommend deleting the image file, as the image is now attached to an album article, Fight (EP). Mburrell (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, file now solely used on an article about the album. Salavat (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in Fight (EP) and keep it off other articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep NF rational satisfied for use in Fight (EP)-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: no consensus. Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Savidan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Licensing conflict: The license text appears to say GPL not GFDL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Yeah under the GPL. Not a good license for media, but can and should be kept. &mdash;innotata 00:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment  the current website for this project - http://requiem-projekt.de/impressum/ - actually says says GFDL.  So from that standpoint it would appear to be good.  The only hesitation I have is that I used archive.org to go to an old version of the site  and it says "Copyright: Images for viewing and use for scientific purposes only. For reproductions, please contact the copyright holder directly."  I took a look at some of the pictures on their site, e.g. http://requiem-projekt.de/db/pic_ausgabe.php?pictID=767 and my example photo (not the subject of this IFD) says "Copyright notice: requiem".  So I would assume that this means that the Requiem project owns the copyright to my example photo and they have released it under the GFDL.  On the other hand, here's a photo http://requiem-projekt.de/db/pic_ausgabe.php?pictID=3245 whose copyright notice says "no entry" and who credits some third party website as the source of the image.  So if someone can speak German well enough to navigate the menu at http://requiem-projekt.de/db/ and find this particular photo of Pope Clement's tomb, then we can know whether whether the copyright holder is the Requiem project or not.  Unfortunately, the search is via drop down menus and I have no idea what any of them say - you can't just type in "Clement". --B (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:First-point-of-aries.svg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: no consensus. Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * File:First-point-of-aries.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Kwantus ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

"Early" upload - Almost certainly own work, but as uploader is deceased, no way to confirm it. Not sure how this is supposed to be handled? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Too simple to get a copyright IMO. Can be moved to Commons with PD-ineligible. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Commons - if you look at the XML source code of the SVG, it includes sodipodi:docbase="/u/kwantus" sodipodi:docname="/u/kwantus/equatorial-ecliptic.svg so we need neither tea leaves nor a seance to ascertain the original author - we can safely change the template to GFDL-self. Also worth noting, Commons:File:First point of Aries.png is an extracted PNG from this SVG. --B (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.