Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 25

November 25

File:Mohsen-Yeganeh-Behet-Ghol-Midam.mp3

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally F9-tagged, but it looked like fair use, so I've gone ahead and added that rationale. The mp3 is malformed, though, so I can't get it down to proper size. Without it being shortened down to an acceptable length, the fair use rationale is invalid. So hopefully someone with more audio wiz skills than me can take care of that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Length isn't the main issue. My main concern is its contextual significance to the whole song even in a non-English language. So far, I've yet to see how omitting this sample would affect such understanding. —George Ho (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2024 (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:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png

Non-free file may actually be free: I think the original (04:12, 13 October 2024) upload does not meet the threshold of originality and should be restored and marked as such. The text on the webpage was very brief (see "words and short phrases" at :c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States § Threshold of originality) and the logos are already on Commons. A complicating issue is that the original file was repeatedly overwritten by more complex files, which may actually meet the threshold of originality. These overwrites should not have happened, as the original state of the webpage was the intent of the screenshot (described in the filename). I think the original upload should be restored and marked as free. This discussion was moved from deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 21 § File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png, pinging Aafi, Cryptic, Alalch E., Robert McClenon, Stifle, Jclemens, Hobit as involved in previous discussion). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous responses at this file's entry at deletion review
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The text on the image is well above the threshold to be copyrightable. So is the portico logo in the upper left. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The logo is on the Commons as a text logo: c:File:Internet Archive logo and wordmark.svg. I agree about the text. —Alalch E. 01:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the text on the image as it is in the most recent file is fairly long and copyrightable; however, I'm specifically requesting restoration of the first upload, which was a much simpler webpage that does not qualify for copyright. All four of the component logos are also text logos and on Commons already. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse per Cryptic~~. Restore as WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. The original 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was erroneously uploaded as a non-free work when it is in fact not copyrightable, and then it was replaced by successively more copyrightable files, as the outage notice was made progressively longer. The original notice is historically the most important, serves best as illustration, and the file should never have been "updated", which was an obvious editorial error caused by editors believing that Wikipedia should be "synchronized" with another website to deliver the latest notice from that website (???), when the image only serves to illustrate the historical event.—Alalch E. 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Question - There isn't any record of a deletion discussion or a deletion log. Is this a request to undelete a larger, higher-quality file? Also, if the purpose is to move the higher-quality image to Commons, is English Wikipedia Deletion Review even the right forum to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The revision with the full resolution 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was revision deleted subject to WP:F5: {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only. This was done correctly. —Alalch E. 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] No action. The image is clearly above the threshold of originality. Deletion of larger resolution versions was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Can you clarify what you think passes the threshold of originality? The webpage text is extremely simple and I can't imagine a court even considering a claim to copyright over a standard "we apologize for the inconvenience" message. The text logos are already on Commons, so I feel like the community there has already made a determination that they are not copyrightable. As it is the low-resolution image is not useful for its intended purpose as it is too low-resolution to read the text. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Send to FfD as there is a reasonably articulated challenge to the speedy F5 deletion of the requested revision, which may or may not have the same copyright issues as later version(s). Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Send to FfD per Jclemens. It does appear to be above the threshold of originality, but I'm not expert and worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Delete. Logo and composition of text are above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why else besides non-free logo and composition? And which of the logos are non-free, and how is the composition non-free? The Internet Archive logo is already in Commons. Also, the composition itself is too factual and unoriginal enough for copyright. George Ho (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to the state as of 13 October 2024 and move to Commons per nom. The logos are text logos and the text included in the original upload (shorter than the progressively longer text in later files) is not copyrightable. We could make this screenshot from the Wayback Machine right now and upload it to Commons, and it would not be deleted from the Commons. But moving is nicer because it's an original historical image.—Alalch E. 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons (some revisions only) hard to fully judge without seeing other revisions. Nonetheless, as I see, the file itself contains logos and text unoriginal enough for copyright. Nothing artistic or creativity is used in text enough for copyright. The text work isn't a literary work either. Can't help wonder why the the file is perceived as non-free in the first place. —George Ho (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original uploader are probably unsure which license to use when uploading the photo. Nonetheless, from my perspective, the original file should be restored due to the file name. Because the uploader, put dates on the file which is "13th October". The restoration of the image and move it to Commons allows the image to also be used on Wayback Machine article. 2606:1A40:1035:0:211C:5C8:490F:E2BD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in song article because there is so much sourced, critical commentary in both the Recording and Background and composition sections that justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note/suggestion - If it was to be kept, it should be taken out the infobox and an appropriate caption listed which explains or uses a quote from critical commentary which relates to the portion of the song used. Additionally, the sample page needs a better description that n/a against the WP:NFCC criteria.

>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:V. Armbruster - Rochdale Hornets.jpg

Fails WP:NFCCP #1. I have added the alternative free image to the Vic Armbruster article. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of Truth or Dare.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3b as the image is high quality, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not increase the readers understanding of the topic. The scene in the image is adequately described in words, the picture does not add to this. Aside from this, the scene in the image is not subject to critical commentary or evaluation, or response from reliable sources. Its omission does not damage the subject content - images while advisable where possible, should not be taken for granted and assume that they fall under fair use (when they are from copyrighted material - music videos are non-free media) where their use cannot be demonstrated to be paramount to user understanding of the content being discussed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have disagreed with you asked me to take it down, but after your long message on my talk, I can see where this is coming from and it's okay, I understand. The image is not high quality and I'm not against taking it down. Thank you for looking into this. dxneo (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with our prior interactions. Please see WP:NFCC. Music videos are copyright media, it is illegal to share content from there. It is only classified as fair use if we can demonstrate that what is depicted in the screenshot cannot be adequately explained in words e.g. because its highly stylised or graphic, and/or its been subject to critical commentary from reliable sources. I spend a lot of time nominating media which is copyrighted - its not personal. This is only a discussion. Others might come along and determine that the content should stay. Administrators decide based on the arguments made. Its not a done deal yet :) >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work and keeping the house clean. Looking forward to working with you in the future. You the best. dxneo (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – merely shows a singer in a music video; doesn't improve the understanding of (what) the song and the music video (are about). Also contextually significant to neither (sub?)topic. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion As I was editing the articled i found this and I think to replace the screenshot with the part where she seduces the guy to steal his keys in the video would be better as it showcases what is clearly written in the music video part of the article.

This0k (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do ya really believe that readers wouldn't understand the synopsis of the music video without a non-free screenshot? The scene you suggested is already easily explained in words without the screenshot itself, which still doesn't improve such understanding. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mogadishu in 2017.jpg

Image authorship discrepancy. The stated author is MrMidnimo (talk · contribs) but the uploader is Ayanl3 (talk · contribs). Clarification is needed here, as this is vague and ambiguous. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's public domain either way, as Somalia has no copyright law and no copyright relations with other nations. Bremps... 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]