Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

"Breaking Bad" 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: delete. ✗plicit 11:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These non-free images are being used in the infoboxes for episodes of Breaking Bad. The non-free usage rationales do not state a purpose; they just describe the scene. The images's use is decorative, and the removal of the image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Content does not fail NFCC#8 as it meets contextual significance as it represents the subject of the article. The presence of the photo significantly increases reader's understanding by showing a key scene from the episode, and is useful for those who are watching the show to follow along Wikipedia's episode list to keep up with the plot. Omitting the image detracts from that understanding. LJF2019 ^talk 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for people reading this discussion, LJF2019 is the uploader of a majority of these images.

If a reader wants to keep up with the plot, they can just read the plot summary. Omitting the images does not detract from that understanding. The images themselves range from characters talking (1, 2, 3 for example), characters walking (1, 2, 3 for example), and what some could call random moments in the episode that simply serve as bookmarks to certain readers, such as "Jesse falls through a port-a-potty" in "Down".

For reference, the images in the following episodes were not nominated: "Caballo sin Nombre", "Full Measure", "Crawl Space", "Face Off", and "Ozymandias". Those images feature moments that received attention and caused an aftermath that had to be discussed in their respective articles (vandalizing, Emmy nominations for visual effects, analysis, etc.). They meet every single criteria at NFCC, unlike the images nominated above.

The alternative to an image is text. Take the image in "Abiquiu" for example. "Walter slices garlic for Gus' paila marina stew." The image is not necessary because that description can be moved to the plot summary. It is also not relevant to the episode. Another example is in "Madrigal", which reads, "Mike meets with Madrigal executive Lydia Rodarte-Quayle." Why would that image be necessary? If an image was to be needed, why not just use a free image of Laura Fraser? All of the nominated images are (1) unnecessary, (2) not relevant, or (3) replaceable with text. Another thing, please don't post comments that are uncivil to my talk page (Special:Diff/1085528760 and Special:Diff/1085530078). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched Breaking Bad, but aren't there title cards from the episodes which could be used instead? Historyday01 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same title card for each episode, so no. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no title cards, and the episode name is only shown in the opening on-screen running credits as the first scene or two progresses. --Masem (t) 00:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally you right now. Not sure what you expected spamming all of my photos. Go ahead and delete them, what did you accomplish in life? Think about it, did you really "improve" the encyclopedia by removing content from it? Some policies need to be changed. I'm not going to be civil when you spam my page, just like I'm not going to let someone walk over me at work, which I think you should spend more time doing instead of Wikipedia. Are you making money from being on the site? Does removing content give you your needed dopamine hit or whatever? LJF2019 ^talk 04:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all with a TNT consideration. There is no allowance for a non-free screenshot for any TV episode, and if one is used it has to show that it passes the NFCC#8 contextual test. Now, there is clearly some potential for some episodes of BB to have screenshots given the coverage of the show in both production and reception, with a screenshot selected (eg one that was not nominated was File:Face_Off_(Breaking_Bad).jpg which in Face Off (Breaking Bad) is discussed the iconic nature of that shot and special effects used. But that's the type of info that needs to back every screenshot for each ep, not just the claim that is supports a critical scene. --Masem (t) 00:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Masem. None of these images do much of anything for reader understanding. The articles on The Simpsons episodes don't even have a screenshot posted on their respective articles, and that's one of the most popular shows. The list as far I can tell falls a long ways outside of fair use and should be nuked.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of the images are the subject of significant sourced critical commentary. Simply illustrating the plot isn't sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Masem. Through my journey of working on TV articles, I've gotten well versed in understanding the legality that comes around non-free images, and how they need to support all facets of WP:NFCC, particularly #8. This has long been a project I've dreamed up of really exploring images used for TV episode articles, because many are frankly screenshots of a moment with no critical commentary to back up their inclusion in the articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:L'Oréal HQ.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: Convert to {{FoP-USonly}}. No comment on encyclopedic suitability, this may be discussed in a followup FfD. -FASTILY 02:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{FoP-USonly}} applies to this file, so the original image should be undeleted and the size reduction should be reverted. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File is currently not being used in any articles which means it's going to eventually end up deleted per WP:F5 if it stays non-free. If the file has no legitimate use (it was being used in L'Oréal), then I'm not sure there's a need to change the license to "FoP-USonly". The current infobox image being used in L'Oréal also likely has c:COM:FOP France issues which means it's probably going to end up deleted from Commons. If that happens and nobody reuploads it locally to English Wikipedia as "FoP-USonly", then I guess this file could be relicensed and used instead; that, however, only makes sense if there's valid encycolpedic use for the file. If the headquarters has been moved or changed, then there's probably not much encyclopedic use for even a "free" photo of the former headquarters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This file is CLEARLY erroneously labeled. A free photo of the former HQ certainly has encyclopedic value when discussing the history of the company. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Iran-Armenia Locater.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded - unused JPG Lewis Cawte (Talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bruce Hanna 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Bruce Hanna.jpg. ✗plicit 11:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons: Could be moved to Commons instead of being deleted since the source of the crop appears to (at least at first glance) to be OK for Commons. There's no real need for local version of a freely-licensed cropped Commons file even if a use could be found for this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons Buffs (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per policy at the Commons, "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" are not allowed at the Commons. Therefore, this image is out of scope at the Commons and should not be transfered. Here at enwiki, we are not a file storage service of unused files. House Blaster^talk 19:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dukesandleecabaret.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in Dukes and Lee#Personal life which fails WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image is already being used for primary identification purposes in the article; so, two files aren't needed for that purpose per WP:NFCC#3a. There's is a mention of the Behans performances in the Dukes and Lee#Death as well as in the file's caption, but nothing specific to the cover art of the program itself. In order to justify this file's use in the article, it's likely going to require that there be sourced critical commentary specifically related to the program cover (not just the Behans performances, but the actual program cover itself) for the non-free use to be consider compliant as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If there existed a separate stand-alone Wikipedia article about this particular performance, the program cover could possibly be kept and used there, but no such article exist and the non-free use of the program cover in the biography article about doesn't satisfy relevant policy. For reference, this file was originally proposed for deletion, but deprodded per Talk:Dukes and Lee#Purpose of file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stated purpose "Promotional Program" is not really a purpose but rather a description of the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the program covers removal does not detract from a reader's understanding of this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ngo Quang Truong ARHQ.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: Missing verifiable source, and noting for the record that the source image does not include any verifiable source information. Since this could be {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH}}, no prejudice to restoration if someone is able to produce a verifiable source/citation for this image -FASTILY 02:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its parent file, c:File:ARHQ.jpg, was moved to Commons and deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ARHQ.jpg, which said the source and authorship is unclear. The same goes for this file; it can be replaced by other images on commons. Yeeno (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can clearly be shown to be {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH}}. If this was a crop from the Commons file c:File:ARHQ.jpg, then it can't be kept if, as pointed out above, if the parent file was deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photo was clearly taken on a military flightline (a military cargo plane is in the background). Photographs are not generally allowed without explicit permission (the VAST majority of such photos are via military personnel) and a claim of PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH seems reasonable. Without information from commons on the rationale, it's hard to understand why it was revoked. Buffs (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked about the Commons file at c:COM:AN#DR closed by a subsequently globally banned admin and at least so far it appears that the Commons file was properly deleted. So, unless those issues can be resolved, I don't think this particular cropped version should be kept. There are some English Wikipedia admins who are also Commons admins (Explicit and King of Hearts are two who come to mind) and perhaps one of them can provide additional clarification. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, we can keep files on English Wikipedia that we wouldn't keep on Commons because of different policies (e.g. fair use, PD in US only), but not because of different standards of evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Anchor of an unknown Lola(ship).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not free since it doesn't depict what it claims to depict. Anchor is from japan. See alternative pic and this reddit thread for wider issues ©Geni (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if copyright holder consent isn't verified by WP:VRT. Something isn't Probably not free simply because it doesn't depict what it claims to depict. An incorrect or otherwise inaccurate file description may mean the file shouldn't be being used for contextual reasons, but it doesn't make the file non-free content. Would might make the file non-free content, on the other hand, is whether the copyright holder of the photo (generally the person who takes the photo) didn't give their consent for it to be uploaded as licensed. The file's description states that the photo was taken by a friend of the uploader and perhaps the friend told the uploader that they could upload the photo; that's a nice thing for a friend to do perhaps, but it's insufficient for Wikipedia's licensing purposes. So, if the friend wants to send a consent email to VRT and VRT verifies the email, then this file can be kept; whether it's should be continued to be used in the same way is a different question, but it can be kept from a copyright standpoint. If copyright holder consent can't be verified, the file should be deleted. Trying to convert this to non-free seems pointless because its only possible valid non-free use would be in Chola dynasty#Foreign trade and I can't see how that can be justified per WP:NFC#CS unless sourced critical commentary about the anchor itself is added to the section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be part of a hoax/misleading description/dubious copyright status. Buffs (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Toroa Grounds.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a photograph of a map. Permission from the map's author is needed. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:Derivative work of a photo of map which looks as if it's published in some book. As pointed out, a photo of a map doesn't negate or otherwise invalidate any copyright associated with the map. Unless the person who took the photo is the same person who created the map, the consent of of both are going to be needed for this to be kept. So, if the uploader is the same person who took the photo and also is the same person who created the map, then they should send their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT for verification; otherwise, the file can't be kept. If the uploader, photographer and map creator are all the same person, I suggest that they retake the photo so it's just straightforward reproduction of the map itself without any angles, shadowing elements or anything else that might make the photo itself eligible for copyright. The fact that the file is currently not being used in any articles means there's no point in tyring to convert it to non-free content since it would immediately be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not an image host. Little encyclopedic value. Buffs (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.