Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 26



File:The Unknown Comic.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: relisted on. –Darkwind (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * File:The Unknown Comic.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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:US WW2 TD Comparison.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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:US WW2 TD Comparison.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Виктор_Вихарев_Марков ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image consists of three side profile screen shots taken from the game War Thunder developed and published by Gaijin Entertainment. These screenshots have been edited to seem like user-created art but this is not the case. This can be proven by referencing the image with in-game screenshots that show exact matching details on the tanks in the picture, namely the M10, M18 and M36 to the repsective tanks in the game. For example, in the image, the M36 has 3 jerry-can fuel canisters attached to the tank exactly the same way the 3D model of the M36 in the game has. I can provide reference screenshots of the very same tanks in game in the exact same perspective view if required. Xer0 onPC (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2019 (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:Photo of soldiers.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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Photo of soldiers.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Spwikigroup ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused, low-res, no obvious use  F ASTILY   19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2019 (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:Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square (cropped).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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square (cropped).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Iridescent ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused crop of File:Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square.jpg  F ASTILY   19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to the other JPG file. Salavat (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Local copy of a public domain image relevant to a featured article. No reason to delete; it's not like we're running out of server space. We do, however, know that images on Commons disappear and/or are modified without the uploader or other users being informed, which is why the KeepLocal tag was applied in the first place. Risker (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I can understand that there are some editors who don't like Commons, this is not a personal image created by the uploader. Any file upoloaded to Wikipedia or Commons under a free license/PD license can be pretty much "modified" without requiring the permission of or even notifying the uploader (that's seems to be entire point of uploading the content under a free or PD license in the first place). Wikipedia is not really under any obligation (at least not in my opinion) to host files tagged with Keep local forever per WP:NOTWEBHOST; so, unless the file is being used in some way which is of encyclopedic value to Wikipedia; there's no reason to keep hosting it. If the file is really relevant to an FA, then it should be used in said FA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. When you see these unused and roughly square crops of a detail from the lead images to FAs (or articles being prepared for appearances on DYK or ITN), it's because they're the images to be used in future to illustrate the blurb when the article in question runs on the main page. (Since TFAIMAGE displays at a tiny 100px width, showing the whole image is often less informative than just showing part of it.) Deleting these is just making work for the sake of making work, since all it means is someone then has to either undelete the file or re-crop and re-upload the image. (Moving to Commons isn't an option, as Commons quite rightly are likely to consider assorted crops of the same file to be out of scope unless there's a particular reason.) For newly-promoted articles this will no longer be an issue, as Dank writes the blurbs at the time of promotion rather than when the article is scheduled, but this one passed FAC before that change was implemented. &#8209; Iridescent 06:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then there's a way to categorize these images so that their encyclopedic value is easier to discern, especially by bots. Right now, it just appears to be a unused crop of another image. If it's somehow made easier for file reviewers to see that such files are not truly "orphans" and do have some value to the project, then they are less likely to end up at FFD. Even briefly mentioning something about this in the file's description (with perhaps a more detailed explanation provided on the file's talk page) would be helpful.I can see keeping the local cropped version based upon your post, though it seems a bit unlikely (in my opinion) that a cropped version would end up deleted based solely upon c:COM:SCOPE via a c:COM:DR as long as it's used somewhere (even a type of FA image-maintenance page or a user page) per c:COM:INUSE; however, I still, don't really think there's a really good reason to keep the a local copy of the primary image (i.e. the source of the crop) since the same file exists on Commons. Just because someone tagged it with "Keep local" does not really in and of itself seem like an automatic obligation to host the file in perpetuity, especially when there's no real reason the Commons file couldn't be easily used instead without any loss of encyclopedic value wherever the local file is currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Benjamin (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent, and given the explanation provided, I ask Fastily to withdraw the nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whenever there's a question of whether to delete a crop that a FAC nominator would like to use in a blurb, I have no objection to writing a blurb to go with the image and sticking it somewhere, if that would resolve the deletion issue. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. There was a discussion a long time ago about the article that goes with this image at WP:TFAR ... some people felt strongly that we shouldn't run it ... so I'll hold off on doing a blurb for this one until there's another discussion. See Iri's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol that's a lot of vitriol for a suggested housekeeping delete. I'd like to point out that cropped version isn't actually used anywhere.  The full-res version isn't nominated for deletion, which is what most of the !votes seem to be referencing.  -  F ASTILY   00:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any vitriol in the comments here (nor anything amusing to warrant a "Lol"). It may not have been obvious why this file was created, but a perfectly reasonable explanation has now been provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I obviously disagree. Wikipedia isn't a webhost for unused files.  -  F ASTILY   02:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fastily, it has been explained to you that the image has an encyclopedic purpose. Your cavalier attitude - including invoking a policy that does, in fact, support keeping exactly this type of image, prepared in expectation of being placed on the Main Page - is really problematic. Please rethink your attitude; withdrawal of the nomination would be an appropriate course of action.  Risker (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's encylopedic value to keeping it, then there's really no reason why a crop cannot be uploaded to Commons. Commons is already hosting c:File:Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square.jpg and that file is being used lots of times; so, that file seems unlikely to be deleted (at least not without a c:COM:DR). There's no reason to expect that a crop of that file is going to be deleted if it has encyclopedic value and is being used. Some editors don't like Commons and I get that, but this is not the upoader's personal photo or otherwise copyrighted image; it's a PD image and there's no real reason to even keep the local File:Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square.jpg per NOTWEBHOST. So, if there's no real reason to keep a local version of the primary file, then there's certainly no reason to keep local version of a crop taken from it. An explanation of the how the cropped file is going to be used can be added to its Commons description, and that in combination with the file now being currently used on User talk:Iridescent makes it seems unlikely that such a file would end up deleted per c:COM:INUSE, particularly if is going to shortly appear on the main page. As long as there are no problems with its licensing, the file should be OK on Commons and once it appears on the main page it will definitely be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just because it's not being used at the moment doesn't mean it won't be used in the future. And per Iridescent. — Ched (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2019 (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.