Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 10



File:Nokia5300.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. Whpq (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Nokia5300.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Hrq007 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious copyright claim as TinEye shows this image could be found at numerous other websites prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (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.

Survivor 41 images

 * 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 the Season logo and delete the DVD cover. Whpq (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Survivor 41 Logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by KryptoBit ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Survivor 41 dvd cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by ScottHudson1992 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logos of respective specific Survivor seasons have been used. I replaced most of the logos with DVD covers that contain the same logos and various cast members. However, the case of Survivor 41 is different: both the DVD cover and the logo look 100% different from each other.

The official DVD cover of Survivor 41 contains neither the season-specific logo nor cast members. Rather the DVD cover is different from other Survivor DVD covers and contains the host/producer Jeff Probst carrying a torch (literally) and a different logo using a generic typeface. I am uncertain whether it helps readers understand the specific season and complies with WP:IMGCONTENT more than the logo, even with recommendations by MOS:TVIMAGE, which per WP:GUIDES can be treated with common sense.

Preferably, I should lean toward the stand-alone logo indefinitely until a better official DVD cover arrives. However, I'd be also fine with the consensus going for a DVD cover. George Ho (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi George. I agree, I think the stand-alone logo gives readers a better understanding of the evolution of the show's transition from "themed" or "subtitled" seasons to a numbering system, which is a huge change for the show's marketing and branding. 2600:1700:9F60:9590:7525:9228:2C4B:B0D9 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the second image which is the DVD cover to be a fair-use policy. The Amazing Race 33 DVD cover now has a letter face format without the teams. ApprenticeWiki  work  00:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your vote for the DVD cover. However, I honestly thought Survivor and The Amazing Race are different cases, aren't they? The Amazing Race seasons lack their own season-specific logos or title cards with exception to The Amazing Race: Family Edition and a few All-Stars seasons. Furthermore, before I uploaded DVD covers, most of The Amazing Race season pages lacked lead images. (Maybe because editors prefer title cards or logos for reality TV seasons, or probably seasons of other reality shows aren't released on DVD?) Moreover, I couldn't find alternative official branding images for The Amazing Race 33.
 * In contrast, Survivor logos have been used in season-specific articles for a few decades before I discussed whether to replace most of the stand-alone logos with DVD covers containing the same logos. Somehow, the Survivor 41 DVD cover doesn't use the season-specific logo, and I have concerns about it representing the season when the logo also exists. I don't mind the DVD cover not displaying faces, but using a generic font and Probst's appearance makes the DVD cover look like a (bland or generic) cover for one of streaming/digital releases. Speaking of digital, the same image is used in Amazon search for the season on Prime Video.
 * The fair-use policies (e.g. WP:NFCC and WP:IUP) don't say whether to keep a DVD cover or logo. Rather they are general about non-free content and which content improves contextual understanding of article subjects. WP:NFC and MOS:TVIMAGE are just reflections of consensus and advisories. Per WP:GUIDES, guidelines are to be followed but also can allow certain exceptions used by common sense. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - just because two pieces of non-free media aren't similar to each other isn't a reason to retain them. Is there any particular thing that we are getting from the logo that we don't get from the DVD cover (and vise versa).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which image would you rather keep and why? --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say I really mind what is the image used. I like to refer to it as the identifying image, but there should only be one. Cases where we can have two pieces of non-free media is when there is critical commentary of the image used.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to use both. Rather I took both here for further input. I think the logo identifies the season and conveys the marketing and branding, but the DVD cover also does the same purposes. The logo uses elements to convey or tell audience what the season is supposed to be about. In contrast, the DVD cover resembles more a generic Survivor teaser poster and similar to the Survivor 42 DVD cover. Furthermore, the DVD cover isn't clearly telling readers what the season is supposed to be about aside from the DVD title saying "Survivor: Season 41". I even think Jeff carrying a torch is insufficient conveyance, isn't it? Even when WP:NFCI#1 would accept the DVD cover, I think the logo meets WP:NFCC more than the other, especially as WP:NFC accepts a logo of the child entity, like a TV season. I really hope the logo is not merely promotional per WP:logos, is it? George Ho (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep the logo, delete DVD cover The standalone logo is the better representation of the season, as it is the traditional Survivor logo updated each season since 2000. The DVD cover is an alternate logo and is not preferred over the traditional, primary logo. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2022 (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:WhiteRabbit.ogg

 * 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: Textbook WP:NFCC violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article(s) is/are significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this sample in-depth - F ASTILY   21:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:WhiteRabbit.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Hephaestos ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Current usages in American popular music, Jefferson Airplane, and White Rabbit (song) may fail WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Defaulting to favor deleting this sample if there's no opposition, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in the song article where there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion there. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in the song article per above reasons. 203.219.205.102 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the article about the song does not contain sourced critical commentary about this portion of the track. Fails WP:NFCC. ✗  plicit  23:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was somehow removed from American popular music. Delete in Jefferson Airplane where lacks sourced commentary which should justify why the audio should be included in the article. Băng Tỏa  20:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about justification for use in the song article? George Ho (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete from all articles. The commentary in the article does not need this sample to enhance understanding. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2022 (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:Spirit 5-01-07.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 F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Spirit 5-01-07.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lajackson ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Stern (Small) 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lajackson ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:Launch (Small).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lajackson ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploads of different sizes, low quality. File:SpiritofSClj.jpg definitely isn't an own work. Doubtful licensing. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 07:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  F ASTILY   20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Week keep Seems fine to me, has sensible EXIF metadata and seems in keeping with other photographs of the uploader, and is in actual use. Felix QW (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - I'm not seeing the case for doubtful licensing. Quality is what your would expect from that era. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2022 (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.