Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

File:You're So Good to Me.jpg

Both files seem to be same cover-art uploaded by two different uploaders. "File:You're So Good to Me.jpg" is being used in You're So Good to Me and has a non-free use rationale for that particular usage. "File:Beach Boys - Sloop John B.jpg" was being used in Sloop John B, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c because it's non-free use rationale is also for "You're So Good to Me". Two non-free files are not needed per WP:NFCC#3a, but it's not clear which one should be kept. They both are jpegs, but "File:You're So Good to Me.jpg" seems to be a better quality image (though it probably should be tagged with {{non-free reduce}}). Whichever version is kept can probably be added to both song articles as long as a non-free use rationale is provided for each use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same image. Look at the A-side / B-side placements.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The images look virtually identical to me. The main difference is that some text has been moved around. I don't think that WP:NFCC#3a permits using both of them in the same article. It may be acceptable to use them in different articles (as used to be the case before one of the images was removed from its article), but the FUR of course needs to be fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beachboys smile cover.jpg

Non-free cover art being used in Smile (The Beach Boys album) and The Beach Boys#50th year reunion celebration. Each usage has a non-free use rationale (nfur), but only the usage in the main infobox of the article about the album itself seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. Usage in the band's article seems mainly decorative and should be removed because the cover-art itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. The only mention of Frank Holmes, the artist who created the cover art, is in the caption, and even though the non-free use rationale for the band article goes into quite a bit of detail about why this cover is significant, none of what is written can be found in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added explanation of significance to the Beach Boys article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paperback Writer.jpg

Non-free image being used in Baroque pop#Origins: early to mid-1960s. File has a non-free use rationale, but usage seems purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. The Beatles are discussed in the section, but the image itself isn't the subject of any sourced commentary and the claim in the non-free use rationale that "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The Beatle songs during this period such as 'For No One' and 'Eleanor Rigby' both used baroque instrumentation.[1][2] This pattern can be seen on later tracks such as 'Piggies', 'She's Leaving Home' and 'A Day In The Life'" and the sources cited could actually be added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:PleasePleaseMe.jpg

Non-free cover art being used in Please Please Me (the stand-alone article for the album) and Angus McBean (the photographer who took the photo). Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but usage in the photographer's article fails WP:NFCC#8. There are only two brief mentions of the album throughout the article, and neither of these is the sourced commentary about the cover itself that is generally required according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Beatles - Butcher Cover.jpg

Non-free cover art being used in Yesterday and Today, The Beatles in 1966, and Robert Whitaker (photographer)#The "butcher cover". Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but I'm not too sure about file's use in the photographer's article. There's a lot written about the album in that particular section, but there are no inline citations provided so it's hard to know how much is original research and what reflects what reliable sources said. There are few external links about the cover, but the links are dead and according to the most recent archived versions ([1], [2]) they don't seem to be reliable sources per WP:UGC. So, I'm not sure if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and I think the image should be removed from the article based upon a strict interpretation of WP:NFC#cite note-2, but I am also interested in reading what others think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of its use in the Whitaker article. Given the state of the rest of the article, removing the image at the moment would be absurd (why remove an image from an extensive section that discusses the image itself?), and deleting the file just because it's perhaps used wrongly elsewhere would also be crazy. Discuss the Whitaker situation at its talk page, and if removing the text is a good idea, remove the image too. If its current use at the other pages is problematic too, this can always be orphaned and deleted as such. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Where the Shilling is used.jpg

Low-resolution JPG map; I've replaced it with File:African use of the shilling.png. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MattBlank.jpg

Unused userphoto. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venera9.png

I attempted a DFU tag but that was dispuated, so listing here for further discussion.

This is a copyrighted image with copyright held by Roscosmos. While this picture is interesting, it is copyrighted, not used in the correct context for fair use, free alternatives are available without significantly impacting the article Venus. For example here is a category of public domain images of the Venus surface: commons:Category:Magellan radar images of Venus]]. For the article Venera 9 - I don't think a copyrighted image that the space-craft took counts as fair use.

1)* Magellan radar images show the surface of Venus from a different angle. I don't think the angle and technology difference constitutes fair use. Free images can also be created for the first criteria- a free image could be created by placing a camera on Venus and taking another picture.

4) Previous publication.* The link for a previous publication is not the copyright owner! And it is not clear that the page has the copyright owner's permission. In fact it is unlikely.

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." - I don't think this image significantly increased the reader's understanding of either article. The article Venus does not even refer to the image or its content in the text of the article. Venus 9 has a short description in the text, but it is a brief mention that is not significantly improved by having an image (and the image is in a different place of the article from the text).

3) b)* resolution is not lower than original (in fact seems to be up scaled?)

Anon 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]