Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 4



File:Boeotianhcrs.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: no consensus. — ξ xplicit  03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Boeotianhcrs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bkobres ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is credited as being "Adapted from the image in Lady of the Beast, by Buffie Johnson, 1988, pp. 237. by Bob Kobres" - checking that original book on amazon.com, the "adaptation" is simply that the image has been slightly compressed horizontally and has picked up some scanning artefacts. The book is still in copyright. McGeddon (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The file page says that the image is derived from a 2600 old vase. Pretty sure a book cannot claim copyright on such a faithful reproduction of an ancient work, and a 2600 old work both predates copyright and would be long out of copyright even if it didn't. Assuming that the file page's claims hold up (and given the art style and the things that come up when Google image searching it), that image would still be free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (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:Bismarck gameplay.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: keep both. — ξ xplicit  03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Bismarck gameplay.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Jaguar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Bismarck gameplay 2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Jaguar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Both of these non-free files are used in Bismarck (video game) to illustrate gameplay in the game. However, only one should be necessary per WP:NFCC; both existing on the page seems to be an unnecessary overuse of non-free files to illustrate the same point. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's been a misunderstanding, video game articles frequently use more than one non-free image. I've got a dozen GAs with two images in the gameplay section and there's been no incident? JAG  UAR   22:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That could very well be true; I don't have any concrete evidence off hand proving consensus otherwise, so I have no rebuttal. However, in my opinion, this could have been an issue on those GAs that was overlooked since the reviewers looked at the encyclopedic aspect of it rather than the WP:NFCC qualifications of the files on the article as a whole. (I say this based on basically absolutely no experience in looking at articles such as you reference above, nor speak for any of the GA/FA reviewers.) I have, more or less, listed these to see what some of the FFD participants may think in regards to these two files being present. There may possibly be a issue (determined by consensus) that may have not been noticed in either one of our experiences. Steel1943  (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline in question is WP:VGIMAGES. As far as I'm aware there is no rule stating that more than one free image is not allowed. Technically almost all VG articles have more than one non-free image - the cover art and a screenshot of gameplay are both mandatory. Gameplay sections frequently use two images in order to display the different interfaces and aspects of the game, which would be difficult to achieve with one image. An example of this is Freedom Planet, an FA, which has three images. I've read through the FAC a few times and found no issues with the images. In fact I've never seen this kind of discussion brought up anywhere. If you want further input on this, I could ask some people at WT:VG to see what they think of this matter? JAG  UAR   22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No further 3rd party input required just yet. I'll review WP:VGIMAGES here soon; if it answers my concern, I'll probably withdraw this discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed WP:VGIMAGES; the guideline in no way answers my concern. I was looking for an answer to a question "How many non-free images on an article to illustrate a video game's gameplay is too many where the article's subject is the video game or video game series?", but that guideline in no way answers this. In my opinion, a file needs to illustrate a specific point of the article's subject, and in almost all cases, it is a generality regarding the subject or a subtopic of the article itself, not a sub-subtopic of the article's subject, which these two images seem to do if they are both present on the page. (An example of an article that is a "subtopic" of a main video game article is Gameplay of Final Fantasy; there, multiple non-free files of gameplay examples may be appropriate since that is the specific scope of the article.) In fact, based on the guideline, it says something along the lines of (paraphrase) "take care to make sure that the file does not create WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC concerns", and I have concerns on both (WP:NFCC due to multiple files.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see why a video game would have 2+ non-free files; one the cover art one or several to discuss gameplay aspects. Pretty much impossible that one file could serve both scopes. Now in this case I wonder whether the first (battlefield) screenshot is necessary.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A single, representative screenshot should be sufficient to portray the look/feel of the game (that may not be adequately conveyed by words alone), but any additional screenshots should be necessitated by text—perhaps a section very important to and recurring within reviews but not emblematic enough to replace the first screenshot's use. Otherwise by NFCC, every additional screenshot over the first needs to have unique justification. czar  13:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind removing the second gameplay image if necessary. It's just that in old strategy games like these (that relied heavily on different interfaces and menus), I think that there's a lot in the text which creates the need for a second image. The third paragraph mostly relates to the second image and as a reader I would find the text void if the image wasn't there. For example, The interface of the feature is split into three sections; the upper part of the screen shows a view of the ocean in front of the ship and any hostile ship in the vicinity sounds like it would be better described with an image. Is it just that two screenshots in the same section goes against WP:NFCC or should this be elaborated in WP:VGIMAGES? Sounds interesting. JAG  UAR   16:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both - From reading the gameplay section, there are two distinct phases to the game, and these are best illustrated with two images. - hahnch e n 01:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep both If I had to vote, then I would suggest to keep both of these images as they are both needed to illustrate the text. As with other games in this genre, I consider that two images are necessary. JAG  UAR   16:54, 15 December 2015 (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:Weezer, Project Pabst 2015.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Weezer, Project Pabst 2015.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Allygronholm ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File seems to fail WP:NFCC per any usage in Project Pabst. Besides the hat that the musician on the left is wearing (and the aspect is kind of difficult to see), the connection that this image has to the subject of the article is not so clear at any glance. This image doesn't seem to assist in understanding the subject of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (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:National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Dn9ahx ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC in Caribbean Netherlands. This should only be used in an article about nl:Rijksdienst Caribisch Nederland, but we don't seem to have an article about this for the moment. The file violates WP:NFCC on User:Paoting/Most popular language version of Wikipedia by country. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (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:Rachel Whiteread - House.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: keep in House (sculpture), remove all other instances. — ξ xplicit  03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Rachel Whiteread - House.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Kingboyk ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This fails WP:NFC §6 in Modern sculpture, Rachel Whiteread and Sculpture and should be removed from these pages. It additionally fails WP:NFCC in User:CharlotteM85/sandbox/List of works by Rachel Whiteread. This should only be used in House (sculpture). Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove from all except House (sculpture) Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 11:12, 15 December 2015 (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:Premier League.svg

 * 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 in Premier League, remove all other instances. — ξ xplicit  03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Premier League.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Beamerized ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems to violate WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC §17 on some pages and should presumably only appear in Premier League. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly mustn't be used in user space; such usages may be summarily removed without discussion, . -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2015 (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.