Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

September 20[edit]

File:Terminator 6 first poster.jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already non-free media on this page and it includes these characters. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 20 September 2019 (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:Mary Jo Kopechne.jpg[edit]

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 Ted Kennedy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this file in Mary Jo Kopechne seems fine, but I don't think the same can be said for the file's use in Ted Kennedy#Chappaquiddick incident per WP:NFCC#8. There's a hatnote to Chappaquiddick incident where reader's can find out more about the event, but a bit surprisingly there are no pictures of either Kennedy or Kopechne being used in that article. The biography about Kopechne is wikilinked in the both the lead and relevant section of the Kennedy article, so the reader can go to that article to find out more about her. I don't think there's any real loss of understanding of the relevant article cause by not seeing this photo and I don't think the reader's understanding is significantly increased by seeing a photo of her taken seven years before the incident; so, its non-free use seems more decorative than contextual to me per WP:NFC#CS. Suggest keep for the Kopechne article, but remove from the Kennedy article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Kopechne, remove from Kennedy, add to Chappaquiddick incident. I agree her yearbook photo doesn't increase understanding of Kennedy's bio, and would be better replaced with another photo more illustrative of the incident (such as Kennedy's car after it was pulled from the pond). However, it is the only photo we have to illustrate Kopechne, and the incident was about her death and not all about Kennedy's political career, therefore it belongs there. From your remarks above, I take it you agree. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a bit surprised that there was no photos of either Kopechne or Kennedy in the "Chappaquidick" article, but that doesn't mean I automatically think their should be. There are obviously tons of free photos of Kennedy which could be used, but adding one without the other would seem a little like a type of image WP:UNDUE in this case. At the same time, I'm not totally in agreement that adding a photo from Kophecne's college yearbook taken several years prior would really significantly improve the reader's understanding of the incident in a way that not seeing said photo would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFC#CS); moreover, there is a link to both bio articles where photos of Kennedy and Kopechne can be seen which seems sufficient per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. I get that the yearbook photo was used by lots of papers and other media outlets at the time and has continued to subsequently been used ever since, but they grab what they can for the moment and which they can use per fair use; I think Wikipedia, however, sort of expects a little more than that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2019 (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:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg[edit]

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. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. Seeing one of the last photos of Jimi Hendrix does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the Death of Jimi Hendrix. damiens.rf 03:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Text in the article describes the circumstances: "By around 2 p.m., he was sitting in a garden area outside the apartment enjoying some tea while she took photographs of him holding his favorite Fender Stratocaster guitar that he called the "black beauty".[19] In the opinion of author Tony Brown, "Jimi doesn't look particularly healthy in these photographs: his face seems a little puffy and on only a few of the pictures does he attempt to smile."[20][nb 4]" The photo allows readers to see if they agree with Brown's opinion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The points the image illustrates are sufficiently conveyed by text alone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ojorojo. If Tony Brown's opinion is important enough to be quoted in the article, we also need to show a representative example of these photos for the quotation to be useful. Both "doesn't look particularly healthy" and "his face seems a little puffy" are subjective to the point that they need to be accompanied by the photo in order to be understood. One couldn't imagine the appearance of the photo or Hendrix in them on the basis of those quotations alone. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:52, 21 September 2019 (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:Black Dog45.jpg[edit]

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. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the front cover of the French single release "Black Dog". It is currently used at both the "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Black Dog (song)" articles. However, I'm concerned about whether the usage in "Misty Mountain Hop" article complies with WP:NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion (#8). I'm also concerned about whether the usage also complies with MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, including rules #1.2 (disallowing decorative use) and #1.4 (being specific, unique, and irreplaceable to the article). If the usage doesn't comply with either of the rules, then the image should be removed from "Misty Mountain Hop".

"Misty Mountain Hop" was released as an album track of Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album (officially untitled but had official logos identifying the album) and as the B-side track of "Black Dog". Many single releases put "Misty Mountain Hop" underneath "Black Dog", indicating that B-side track is below the A-side one.

I tried removing the image, but the edit was reverted. I don't know why "Misty Mountain Hop" is included in those front covers when, in fact, it's been released as B-side. Maybe the band requested it, I guess? However, the record label (or company) still released the song that way. Some other single releases by other artists have two songs in their front covers; I don't know whether that's a coincidence. Also, I don't know why the song is classified/categorized as "single", despite multiple sources treating it as a "song". "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" is listed as a single, but I don't think sources list the release as "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog" (unless I missed one). However, I think the "single or song" debate, which is discussed at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop (where somehow B-side tracks by Led Zeppelin are treated as "singles"), is probably separate from the image issue.

Single or song, I don't think the image helps readers understand the song "Misty Mountain Hop" in any way, and I don't think removing it would affect their understanding of the song... or "single"(?). The readers would already know that the song/single "Misty Mountain Hop" is released as a B-side, especially without the French sleeve. Also, it wouldn't affect the categorization/classification, would it?

There are alternatives to the French sleeve: back cover of the Italian release, or a B-side label of the US release, which I may upload at Commons eventually. I may more likely choose the US one because it's free to use and the expression of facts isn't original enough for US copyright protection anyways. The Italian image is non-free and wouldn't improve the article quality or readers' understanding in any way. Also, the Italian release puts "Led Zeppelin" above "Black Dog" but didn't do the same for "Misty Mountain Hop". Also, the Italian release takes images from the parent album. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, the song "Misty Mountain Hop" was never individually charted in music charts. If the song were listed, a chart would list the single release as "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" instead of "Misty Mountain Hop / Black Dog". George Ho (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep George is again on his campaign to remove single picture sleeves from song infoboxes. However, the discussions don't favor his view (see this, this, this, etc.), so he's trying it again here. Most picture sleeves give a much better idea of the artist, the song title is usually prominent, the accompanying graphics often reflect the time and style, and how it may have been promoted. I don't see that there is a "free equivalent"; a photo of the single label (which George favors) simply does not convey the same information. Also, they aren't "purely for decoration" and are only used in infoboxes (isn't the "Images and notation" section of MOS:MUSIC more geared to images that appear in the main body?) —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in both articles. It identifies "Misty Mountain Hop" by being a work where the song (or single) was released. It's not just any work associated with it, the fact that it's printed on the cover means this work cover is the most relevant one out there for this song. I'm not convinced that a non-free equivalent exists either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 24 October 2019 (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:ScottNearing.jpeg[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#1 (free equivalents are available - e.g. File:Nearing-scott-c1917.jpg) and WP:NFCC#8 (decorative non-free content) FASTILY 07:31, 20 September 2019 (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:SunRecord45.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 07:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a record collector and discographer, there is little that provides more context than a record label, so I feel #8 is satisfied. However, I think the licencing should be changed to PD-Pre1978, as it is from 1957 (file is of an original pressing) and there is no copyright notice for the label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 20 September 2019 (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.