Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 12

 &lt; June 11 June 13 &gt;

File:Hyderabad skyline durgam cheruvu.jpeg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡  01:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Hyderabad skyline durgam cheruvu.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ustadeditor2011 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a picture of the Durgam Cheruvu Bridge in Hyderabad, but article on the Durgam Cheruvu Bridge has an entirely satisfactory image of the bridge.  The rationale given for non-free use is for the article on the city of Hyderabad, and says For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Any derivative work based upon the artwork would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible. The file will be used only in the Infobox.  None of which is relevant to its possible use in the infobox on the article on the city of Hyderabad. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as replaceable with anything in c:Category:Durgam Cheruvu Cable Bridge or c:Category:Views of Hyderabad, India. hinnk (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hyderabad skyline Khajaguda.jpeg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡  01:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Hyderabad skyline Khajaguda.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ustadeditor2011 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a picture of the skyline and the Khajaguda Lake in Hyderabad. The rationale given for non-free use is for the article on the city of Hyderabad, and says For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Any derivative work based upon the artwork would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible.  The file is used only in the infobox to depict city landscape. This has little relevance to its possible use in the infobox on the article on the city of Hyderabad.  There are far more good photographs of Hyderabad on Commons than we could possibly use in the article on the city.  As for the article on the Khajaguda Lake; it already has an entirely satisfactory photograph in the infobox. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as replaceable with anything in c:Category:Khajaguda Lake or c:Category:Views of Hyderabad, India. hinnk (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:HavocinHeaven1964.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗ plicit  23:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:HavocinHeaven1964.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Benjwong ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The copyright of this film or TV work expired in 2015. Please use to replace the original fair use label. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The upload comment mentions "re-uploaded lower res pic". Was there a higher resolution version that could be restored? hinnk (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Matrix. The copyright in China hadn't expired by 1996, so it would still be under copyright in the U.S. Should probably be tagged as . hinnk (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as non-free per URAA, the copyright in the US will only expire on (1964+96) = 2060. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? - uselesscontributions } 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat as a young man.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡  01:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat as a young man.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by InMemoriamLuangPu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unsure if PD but definitely not a CC-licensed file. Seems a tad redundant to File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat.png to be converted to a fair use file. --Min☠︎rax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 15:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as No image source. hinnk (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Know Your Enemy 2022 version.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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. ✗ plicit  00:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Know Your Enemy 2022 version.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by The wub ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There's already an album cover at the article, a second one doesn't significantly improve contextual understanding per WP:NFCC8. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? - uselesscontributions } 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, the 2022 version cover is significantly different from the original release (as is the album content itself). So inclusion meets NFCC8 by allowing this version of the album to be identified, and its omission would be detrimental to understanding. Where alternative covers are significantly different this is a commonly accepted use. Quoting Template:Infobox album: If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. the wub "?!"  17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the omission would be detrimental to the user's understanding, but we also have to balance the idea that the minimum amount of fair use material should be used on Wikipedia. You quoted that it must be significantly different, however both covers use the same style, and the background image is the same barring the colours. There is not that big of a difference that would leave a reader confused IMO. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? - uselesscontributions } 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The background image isn't the same, it has different patterns and completely different text. the wub "?!"  10:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral – Sure, the 2022 cover looks different from the original, but I don't think it's a sufficient reason to keep the alternative cover. On the other hand, the 2022 release was reworked or remastered or remixed (whatever you call it) and expanded as the double album as originally intended. I thought about originally voting "delete" because the alternative cover doesn't provide info substantially different from the other. However, differences between original and 2022 releases seen much greater than I thought, and deleting the alternative cover would leave readers much curious or assuming that the standard cover art is also used for the 2022 release. —George Ho (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.