Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17[edit]

File:Ralph Richardson and Merle Oberon.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the plot section of The Lion Has Wings against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How can any still image ever "increase the reader's understanding of the film"? It's just an illustration of a scene from the film -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If the image does not "increase the reader's understanding of the film", then it is not needed in the film article. There needs to be critical commentary to justify the image's use in the article and the scene is not even mentioned in the plot section it is located, so why does it need to illustrate the scene? Aspects (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination and Aspect's further comments. If the image is just a "decoration", then it needs to be removed. If it could be demonstrated that the image does actually meet the requirements of non-free media, I would be more than happy to change this to a keep vote. ALH (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2018 (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:EastWestRailServiceMap.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claim is that the direct URL of the image (http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Services-map-updated-2017-without-copyright.jpg) releases this into the public domain. That is not how copyright works. And "without copyright" is not the same thing as releasing it into the public domain. That would require an explicit notice and a public domain license. The main page, http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/mainline-connections/, shows © 2008-2015 East West Rail® Consortium Majora (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it should be changed to fair use. Should I change it? Joshua Marooney (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure it would meet fair use standards. But if you want to draw up a rationale that includes all 10 points at WP:NFCC I'll be happy to look at it. I'm concerned that an actual map may not actually be all that helpful to our readers reading about that specific station. Nor would the entire map be particularly relevant to specific station articles. --Majora (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 in the criteria (thank you for drawing it to my attention), states there must be no free alternative, so I think it should be deleted, and I will make one in illustrator and upload it as a replacement. Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Marooney: Can you draw up a replacement that is both accurate (in terms of which stations are shown) and not a copyright violation (in terms of originality of information)? That is, could EastWestRail say "hey there, you've not used our graphic or even our shapes, but the general layout is ours - we chose which lines to depict and which stations to include on those lines." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I have uploaded one: File:East_West_Rail_services_Diagram_map.png, you may say it similar the original, and violates copyright, but copyright law allows for that within reason, and I am assuming Wikipedia policy too. It is currently pending modification thanks to advice from John Maynard Friedman, however this is not the place to discuss that photo, so delete File:EastWestRailServiceMap.jpg if you wish, but leave my one alone for the moment, until I find the time to modify it at some point. Discuss on My talk page if you wish. Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, @Redrose, that you are setting the barrier too high. The lines and stations are facts on the ground. Drawing a series of parallel lines with one crossing line and then labelling them GWR, WCML, MLML, ECML and EWR is entirely valid. Copyright law does not protect ideas, only their expression. Otherwise every route diagram on every rail line article would be caught. I don't think that the image is particularly useful but that is not what this discussion is about. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Showing stations and the lines that presently connect them is pretty much PD. Asserting that these are the routes that East West Rail will use is another matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2018 (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.