Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13



File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.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:Barrackpore tci.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 ⚡  07:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Barrackpore tci.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is a collage without specific information about the source for the constituent images. A vague wave to wikimedia.com is not a proper source and mediapo.in does not even resolve for me. Whpq (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:23, 14 September 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:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.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. See my closing rationale. Ə XPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by RJHall ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete per WP:NFCC. The book covers are not used as the primary means of visual identification and are not the subject of sourced critical commentary in Dungeons & Dragons or Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. (recent discussion) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, see my comment below. These should be bundled. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 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:PlayersHandbook8Cover.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: remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. See my closing rationale. Ə XPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Frecklefoot ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, comments below. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove from the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per nom. This file is being used for primary identification purposes in Player's Handbook and this seems fine per seems item 1 of WP:NFCI and WP:NFC. It also seems OK in the article about the artist who created the cover as a representative example of his work. The use in the "Editions" article, however, is a problem because there's no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself in the relevant subsection (WP:NFC) of the article, and primary identification is not really necessary per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and item 6 of WP:NFC. A hatnote can be provided to the stand-alone article where the cover can be seen, and this seems to be more than sufficient as alternative to using the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:D&
<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: remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. As pointed out by, the stringent NFCC policy allows cover art to be used in the article about the work in question, which is a de facto satisfaction of WP:NFCC. Usage beyond that does not automatically meet the aforementioned criterion and require a stronger justification per WP:NFC, which is clarified by WP:NFC: NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. [...] The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles... in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article.. These covers are not specifically discussed in a manner which comply with policy, nor did the keep arguments present any policy-based case which justify the additional uses of these covers. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:D&#38;d original.jpg">File:D& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Gracefool ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NFCC#8 doesn't discuss primary means, it discusses contextual content, and in this case it is contextual. This applies to your other nominations here. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are references to points made in WP:NFC, which explains how to satisfy the criterion. Removing the cover would not be detrimental to reader's understanding of the article subject – a reader can easily understand D&D editions without seeing this cover (or any of the others). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see your original argument for these are they aren't the subject of critical commentary, and that somehow the pictures are not a primary means of visual identification. Visual identfication is the primary means of distinguishing which edition you have and I see sources supplied for critical commentary. You then moved the goal posts by suggesting it doesn't satisfy contextual significance, which it clearly does. It's used as a visual identifier for the editions that are discussed and sourced with critical commentary. It may be your opinion that a person can easily understand the different editions, but on the flip side of the coin, it was not for me, which is also a valid opinion. Determining which edition I have, can easily, and most easily be deduced visually - which is what these pictures are aiding with. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't moved anything; it is the same criterion/point being rephrased in different ways. It is not the primary means of visual identification (of the article subject). Criterion 8 deals with with the relationship to the article subject. This book (and the others) is not the subject of the article, the D&D editions are. WP:NFCI#1 explains acceptable cover art uses and the footnote (WP:NFC) explains how this type of use doesn't fit. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is pure gold. First it was #8, then it's #1, now it's a footnote we're arguing about. You can keep moving the goalposts and cite numbers all day long, but you also need to interpret them and relay what parts they're not meeting. I see the footnote says "usually" and in reference to musicians and authors, it sounds like exceptions may apply. And as far as I can tell, the photos meets the footnote requirements as well, though you would have to explicitly show how they're not. Purely citing policy won't get you anywhere - it doesn't demonstrate you understand the policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCCE, the burden is upon the person wanting to use a non-free file in a certain way to provide a valid non-free use rationale for it's use, and providing such a valid rationale involves more than simply adding text or a template to the file's page per WP:JUSTONE. The concerns raised by JJMC89 are legitimate and this type of non-free use has not really been allowed per WP:NFC over the years absent any sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself. If you feel this use is an exception to that, then perhaps you can better clarify how. How is the reader's understanding of the content of the section about the book in the edition significantly improved by seeing this particular cover and how is omitting that cover image detrimental to that understanding? The file is being used for primary identification in Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set which seems OK. There's nothing in the WP:NFCC which says that a non-free file can only be used once, but additional uses tend to be harder to justify per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC and some kind of alternative way of presenting the content per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC should be used instead (even if this means not showing the image) whenever possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You raise valid points. I'm aware of the burden, however in JJMC89's reasoning for deletion, they haven't adequately explained their case, to say the least. Do I feel they have a case? Yes I do. But I didn't learn it from the defense of their nominations, I got it from your comments. I still feel they may not understand it themself based on their unclear and poorly worded reasoning. Anyway, I see your reasoning, and perhaps it is an excessive use of images under our policy. Especially since I am reperceiving "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons" from your description of it as a list. You may be on to something there. However, I think the only thing I dislike about all of this, is that there were no notices on those articles that the imagery would be deleted. I think that could have been handled better. I know the file uploader gets a notice, but what about the article that uses them? A courtesy notice would have been nice. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is template ffdc which can be added to the captions of files nominated for discussion, but it's not required. To be fair though, many times a file doesn't have a caption so it can be confusing on where or how to use such a template. For reference, I tend to use "ffdc" templates whenever possible, but on more than one occasion these have been removed by other editors who didn't like the appearance of the template in the image's caption or wanted the file kept; so, even this doesn't guarantee anything. As for a more general notification about a file being nominated, some files have WikiProject banners added to their talk pages and, like an article nominated at AFD, a file nominated at FFD is usually added somewhere to a list on the WikiProject's page where pages under its scope which are flagged for problem can be found. Not all WikiProjects, however, have set up their pages to receive such notifications just like many WikiProjects don't have delsort templates; so, I guess it depends upon the project. Even that, however, is no guarantee since not everyone editing an article belongs to the relevant WikiProjects. Unlike with files being nominated for deletion from Commons, there's no automated way of adding an FFD notification to an article's talk page and I don't think there ever has been. Perhaps this would be something worth discussing at Talk:FFD, but at the same time AFD notifications aren't added to the pages of files used in articles which are being discussed at AFD; so, maybe this additional notification was once tried, but deemed to be not necessary. The surest way to be "warned" about anything such as this is to add the file to your watchlist and try and keep track of it that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your measured responses. I will begin watching file pages per your recommendation. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all. As the pictures are used in the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article, these are permissible non-free use as the images are used for identification of the respective editions, which is the very subject of the article, making their inclusion a matter of commentary. In short I dispute the claim that these fail the WP:NFCC. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adendum: there are other files simply tagged for speedy that are part and parcel of this motion. The speedy tags should be removed while this discussion is ongoing, as the conclusions decided here also apply equally to those files. oknazevad (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While the editions are the subject of the article, a book cover identifies an individual book, none of which are the subject of the article. (See more above.) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a disingenuous argument. The article is Editions of D&D (plural), of which all the pictures you nominated are exactly editions of D&D - one picture per edition. Exactly how are they not the subject of the article titled "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons"? I think what you want to argue is that an article should only have 1 primary picture to help the reader with the article, but since the article title is literally describing a plurality, one picture will not suffice, unless you do a spread of all the books in one shot and is likely unfeasible. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all – Book covers, in low resolution, are useful for readers to identify various editions of the game manuals, which are the subject matter of the article. — JFG talk 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep all Dungeons and Dragons nominations. Nominator has repeatedly moved the goal posts on their reasoning for nominating them and can't quite determine why they should be deleted. The pictures meet all requirements. The nominator hasn't notified the articles on their respective talk pages that the pictures would be deleted, which would have been a nice courtesy. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * JJMC89, may you or I please switch from "di-fail NFCC" to "FFD" template for other images? Looks like the images don't meet the "speedy deletion" criteria. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thise images have now been deleted despite this ongoing discussion. oknazevad (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2019 (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:D&
<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: remove from Dungeons & Dragons and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. See my closing rationale. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:D&#38;d Box1st.jpg">File:D& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Gracefool ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Remove from Dungeons & Dragons and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise see above. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove from the two articles per nom. This file is being used for primary identification purposes in Dungeons & Dragons (1974) which seems fine per item 1 of WP:NFCI and WP:NFC. There's no real need to use this cover in the other articles since there's no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself in the relevant subsections (WP:NFC), and primary identification is not really necessary per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and item 6 of WP:NFC since there's a hatnote provided to the stand-alone article where the cover can be seen. A single non-free use is already allowed seen as being an exception to WP:COPY by the WP:NFCC (which is based upon the EDP), so any additional uses tend to be much harder to justify. The "Editions" article, moreover, is essentially a WP:SAL written out in prose and non-free cover art is generally not used to "illustrate" individual sections of such articles absent of some pretty strong justification, which I'm don't think is being provided for this particular use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2019 (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:Barrackpore tci2.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Barrackpore tci2.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Collage with no information on source images. This image uses the same base files as File:Barrackpore tci.JPG but with additional images. The other file makes a vague statement of where the files came from. This file doesn't even bother with the vague statement. See also. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (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.