Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 December 7

December 7

File:YouTube screenshot.webp

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. Current image is not in violation of any policies. Use of an alternate image can be discussed on the article talk page. Whpq (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A freer screenshot of the video player could be obtained by using a public domain work. Examples include videos by the federal government of the United States such as from the Department of Defense, NASA and the White House which are in the public domain per section 105 of the Copyright Act of 1976. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as necessary because the current screenshot uses a freely licensed video, as written in the description. Unless you'd consider a video that can be used freely with attribution to be non-free. Is the license of the video featured in the current screenshot unacceptable? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the currently depicted videos are unacceptable. I'm saying that there are public domain works from the federal government that can be used instead. Plus, videos shown in the recommended videos section of the player are usually also from the same YouTube channel, which in the case of governmental works would not require the thumbnails of some videos to be blurred. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the current image as a problem, it was already chosen and uploaded because it is not causing any major copyright problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point now. I'm pretty neutral on replacing what we have. It might be an improvement if you find a video of something more notable/less generic, and fewer of the thumbnails needs to be blurred. I think a proposed replacement should be discussed first. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Facebook status box.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to use a non-free image to illustrate general concepts. For example, here is a sample image from the free client Pidgin. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Replaceable as suggested above, so fails NFCC 1. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 05:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bicardial.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that we need an image showing that the Time Lords have two hearts. This information is easily shown in text and therefore this fair use screenshot is not needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-free image that does not substantially increase the reader's understanding. The image is not wildly informative; if it wasn't accompanied by a caption I would probably have trouble figuring out what it depicted. As the nominator said, this can easily be replaced with text. Cremastra (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg

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 as F8 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #8; the video is not discussed in any way on the page. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as public domain file in Germany (in the rest of European Union), with no authorship (but remain as anonymous work). Before we moving this file to Commons, because it is already in request for undeletion from Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg. --49.150.12.134 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're right, this is likely public domain. The portion of the video is from here here, 70 years have passed, and the video is free from copyright protections in the States because it was produced by Nazi Germany. In this case, moving it back to Commons seems right. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Walt Disney Animation Studios logo.webm

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC criterion 3 - it's an HD video of the logo. While the video is described in the article, it is entirely unsourced and there is no critical discussion of the video, meaning it also fails WP:NFCC criterion 8. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.