Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24

File:Sugar, Sugar - Wilson Pickett.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 & WP:NFCC#8 violation. As always, no prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sleeve is of the German single release (discogs, 45cat, ebay). Uploaded File:Sugar sugar by wilson pickett us vinyl side-a.png as free in Commons. Should make the German sleeve replaceable, i.e. fail WP:NFCC#1. Not confident that the German sleeve is contextually significant (WP:NFCC#8) either. George Ho (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The picture sleeve is attractive, features a rare snapshot of the artist and makes a great addition to the article, regardless of its particular nation of origin, which I consider to be irrelevant and without any significant bearing on policy. - JGabbard (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every front cover features what you've mentioned, and some or many others feature different elements, yet they're still displayed as... well, front covers. I appreciate your willingness to defend the German sleeve, but please argue why you think the German sleeve has no free equivalents and why deleting the German sleeve will harm readers' understanding of the song "Sugar Sugar" and its recordings by first the band and then others. I predict the discussion will end up like other discussions, including one recently closed, but I hope to stand corrected. Speaking of covers, one of covers was changed from the front of a release to the back in "Where Everybody Knows Your Name" per FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further. Please refer to other discussions. - JGabbard (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussions? I already referred to one previous FFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: hopefully, the prior discussions should be used as precedents to this: 14 January 2022, 8 January 2022, 5 December 2021, 8 February 2021. If not, then... as I must say, a picture of Wilson Pickett and song title in one sleeve aren't sufficient reasons to prove the omission of the German sleeve as detriment to understanding the song, which was originally and notably sung by the Archies. Even when the Pickett version performed modestly, I doubt it made more impact than the original. Also, the Archies version has been used in pop culture, while the Pickett version... AFAIK, I've not heard it in pop culture. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 24 January 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:Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.svg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously nominated the musical notation of a riff from Sunday Bloody Sunday in May 2020 for its copyright status dispute. The result was "no consensus", so I changed its status to non-free. Looking at the discussion, one editor voted "delete" as replaceable by text, i.e. failing WP:FREER / WP:NFCC#1. Another said "mark as non-free" yet also said that it may not meet NFCC and may be an unacceptable use. Another said it's possibly free. I still have concerns about the notation's (or note's) ability to be "contextually significant" (WP:NFCC#8) and irreplaceable.

Also, the SVG file was created and released not by a band or a record company, and was probably derived from the song or its sheet music. I can't say for certain whether it may or may not meet WP:NFCC#3b. Nonetheless, the SVG issue has been discussed to death multiple times. ...I guess it comes down to the notation's compliance with the two criteria I mentioned earlier. George Ho (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to delete the svg file if there are no objections, ~~and~~ if failure to meet NFCC is implied, and if there's no consensus on the file's copyright status. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC); expanded, 02:03, 24 January 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:Always and Forever by Heatwave UK picture sleeve.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the band Heatwave has (or had, or has had?) British and American band members, and the band has its customers from both of their home countries. Furthermore, Always and Forever (Heatwave song) was a major hit in those countries. However, I wonder whether the sleeve of the UK single should be displayed anymore.

The other file, File:Always and Forever by Heatwave US vinyl single.png, was uploaded per my request some time after I uploaded the JPEG version of the UK sleeve. This puts the UK sleeve's "contextual significance" and irreplaceability into question. Meanwhile, I switched from front cover to back cover; the back provides more info and conveys the release more than the front. However, my concerns about the sleeve's compliance still hasn't been eased. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 24 January 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:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.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: relisted on 2022 February 11. ✗plicit 13:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Tool - Undertow - Prison Sex - sample.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must evaluate its compliance with NFCC, especially "contextual significance", in Alternative metal, Prison Sex, Tool (band). Listening to the sample, the lyrics start after fifteen or sixteen seconds of music. I doubt critical commentary is sufficient to support the sample in those articles, and I doubt the topics are too hard to convey in text without the sample. However, I could be proven wrong. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 24 January 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:Hi Hi Hi by Wings pink label A-side 1972 UK vinyl.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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ✗plicit 13:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this label contains info too factual for US copyright. Nothing else looks creative or complex enough for copyright. Unsure whether the image is eligible for UK copyright, whose originality standards are very low. If so, then should be tagged as "PD-ineligible-USonly". If not, then it should be transferred to Commons. When the JPEG format was previously used, one of admins disagreed and assumed it to be non-free (past undeletion request). Speaking of JPEG, I just now uploaded the PNG version, which I'm listing here, to supersede the old JPEG one. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I think the other image File:C Moon by Wings pink label UK vinyl.png, which I'm not listing yet, should follow.

If non-free, I wonder whether the UK vinyl is needed. I uploaded a German sleeve as free to use in Commons. However, the band Wings has been British primarily (and American?), and I don't know whether the (free) German single is sufficient to use. Well, the Germans were fortunate to receive the yellow custom sleeve, while the British were unfortunate to receive a generic sleeve rather than official picture one. I could be wrong about the yellow German sleeve being insufficient and the British single as being necessary. George Ho (talk) 10:41, 24 January 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:Eglintonp map.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United Kingdom. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 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:Last Christmas 1985 cover - 7” single.jpeg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the uploader's willingness to display the reissue cover art that's been used in subsequent releases. However, the original 1984 release was successful. Sure, the 1985 re-release did well also, but WP:NFCC#3a normally discourages more than one cover art of single release(s). Preferably, the 1984 cover art showing the duo in Christmas get-ups should be used for now. This reissue cover showing the duo in normal clothes should be scrapped. George Ho (talk) 23:05, 24 January 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.