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 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.
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.
Decorative use in Sabrina Spellman#Live-action television. Non-free images of fictional characters are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles of such characters, but this particular image is not being used in such a way. The screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Moreover, there are free images of Melissa Joan Hart the actress who play the character availble on Commons which could be used to show her if necessary.
However, I think that rationale is not valid for speedy deletion. I think more input is needed as a free image of the actress is not a good substitute for this image, but I'll leave others to decide. To make matters more complicated, it was uploaded by a blocked sockpuppet in 2010. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A freely licensed photo of the actress can be used to show her ("her" in this context refers to the actress, not the character she's playing) if needed, but I don't a non-free image of the character is needed since its main function seems to be decorative. If the file was being used at the top of the article as the primary means of identification, then its non-free use would be OK; however, it's being used in a sub-section of the article about one representation of the character. There's no sourced article content specifically about this particular screenshot, which means that it could be replaced with any other screenshot of Hart as "Sabrina" in order to show her in the role. If that's the case, then there's really no need for any non-free image of Hart as "Sabrina" to be used since there's nothing about seeing Hart as "Sabrina" which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing her as the character would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No free-use image of the actress would be appropriate to show the appearance of a character as portrayed in the show, which is he point of the image here. There won't be any free-use images of any copyrighted character. This portrayal is significantly different than the cartoon image in the infobox and, in a similar way that that cartoon image illustrates that version of the character, this image does the same for the live-action portrayal. Generally fair-use images should be minimized in articles but this image adds value to this article. Any other screenshot of Hart as Sabrina could replace this one, there will not be a free-use one available so this one is as good as any as a representation of what the character looks like in the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would agree with you if this was a stand-alone article about that particular character, but it's not. I think the guidance in MOS:TV#Images is relevant here in that this is an "in-the-body-of-the-article image" which the reader does not actually need to see in order to understand what is written about the character. While I can appreciate that Hart is obviously not the same as the the animated character, I just don't see the context for WP:NFCC#8 be provided for this particular screenshot. I also don't think tweaking the caption as you did here is sufficient enough to justify non-free use. Perhaps there's some sourced information which could be added as to why Hart was choosen as "Sabrina"? Something about her appearance and how it reflected the way the character was portrayed in the comics which goes beyond the obvious that she's female and blond would help justify the screenshot's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance at MOS:TV#Images is more for additional non-free images for the same portrayal. This article is basically a merger of what could be two separate character (in show disambig) articles of the character and just as the infobox character is justified for the animated portrayal the live action portrayal is similarly justified as that would have been the infobox image of a separate article if there were one. Even if there is no commentary about that specific image, I believe it is contextually significant for this usage and meets NFCC#8 and would be detrimental to this article to remove it. I changed the caption as I wanted to emphasize that this is a character image, not an actor image, the emphasis is on the character's appearance, not the actor's. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's definition of contextually significant when it comes to non-free use seems to imply that something more is needed than simply wanting the reader "to see" a non-free file; it has to be essential to the reader's understanding is such a way that not having it would be detrimental to that understanding. Sourced commentary about the image in question somewhere in the relevant article would better connect the article content to this particular image. I don't see how omitting this particular screenshot is going to make anything written about the character in that relevant section difficult for the reader to understand. In fact, I don't see anything in that section about the character's appearance at all. This is why I asked if it were possible to added content about the character's appearance and perhaps why Hart was chosen to portray the character. Why does the reader need to see this particular screenshot for them to understand anything of the content about the character's background or love life? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same justification as for the non-free image in the infobox. Infobox character images are generally permitted without commentary solely to illustrate appearance of the character and that is deemed sufficient justification for the infobox image. This is the significant portrayal in another medium justified in the same way, to illustrate appearance of the character as it is different from the infobox image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file is no longer being used as a main infobox image so that comparison is not really valid in my opinion. From the article's edit history, it does appear that at one time it was primarily about the character protrayed by Hart, and the file was being used as the main infobox image at least up to this version; however, it was replaced and moved to the sub-section here. Lots of editors simply move a non-free image without really taking into account how it affects the file's non-free use justification. They mistakenly assume that non-free use is "article-specific", and all that matters is that image is being used in the same article. Non-free use, however, is "use-specific" and the non-free use rationale is supposed reflect the particular use and how it satisfies all ten non-free content criteria; therefore, moving a file from one location in an article to another is likely going to impact its non-free use justification. A main infobox image may be allowed because it is assumed that the context for the image's non-free use comes from the enitre article and its sources, and that somewhere within that article there will be (or can be) some sourced discussion of the file per se which better justifies its use per NFCC#8. The same, however, cannot necessarily be assumed for non-free images within a sub-section of an article. For example, non-free content use policy might allow the use of a non-free logo in the main infobox because the logo is seen to serve as the the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. The same non-free logo, however, generally requires a much stronger justification, typically being the sourced of critical commentary, when used within a sub-section of the article and the justification for non-free use for the infobox may no longer be applicable. Per your reasoning, it seems that non-free images could also be added for all of the portrayals of the character listed in the "In other media" section as well. I don't think non-free content use policy would consider such a thing to be permissible without a pretty strong justisfication for each specific use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is in poor shape. Too much in-universe coverage and too little real-world perspective. Also, the casting section is missing. If "Casting" section is added, File:Melissa Joan Hart 2011.jpg or File:Melissa-joan-hart-portrait.jpg can be used. However, the current version of the article looks as if it's meant for Wikia. Yes, I took this image to FFD because the "speedy deletion" tag usage was contentious, but I'm not sure how effective the non-free image is. I can find an image of the character using her finger to put spells on others, i.e. special (visual) effects. As Geraldo said, the image may have potential. However, the content looks dull as is, and I don't mean image quality. Without her using a pointy finger in the image, it's still dull. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks better to represent the character doing something in character. My above Keep reasons apply here too but I prefer this image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you uploaded a new image, but I'm still not sure that is NFCCP compliant per MOS:TV#Images. There is really nothing about Hart's appearance in character that is so different from how she looks in real life that a free image could not be used instead. There's no speacial makeup or costume per se, and simply showing her pointing her finger at a glass is not really something that the reader needs to see to understand that the character is a witch who cast spells. All of the content in the "Background" is unsourced and reads like a plot summary, which generally tend to be fairly OR-ish. If there was more critical commentary about the character and about why Hart was cast to play the role (for example, perhaps she looked a certain way, etc.) then it would make more sense to include a non-free image; otherwise, just using it in a subcsection of another article seems a bit decorative and unnecessary to me per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion.
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.
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.
Would this logo be considered in the Public Domain? It was created in 1946 (see here), the only difference being the "KU". I don't believe the "KU" would change the outcome of whether or not it is PD or non-free, due to the fact that the main focus is on the Jayhawk itself. Many logos, even those established some 40-50 years ago, have some slight changes made (i.e. colors) over the years that do not effect the licensing. I'd appreciate any help! Please ping me so I can see your response (otherwise I'll forget). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:05, 19 March 2017 (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.
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. My own view, if it matters, is that applying a simple mechanical transformation to an image, such as rotation, cropping or a filter, does not normally create a separately copyrightable derivative work. Sandstein 08:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
License was updated in good faith, but this would appear to be a screenshot (albiet of a processed version of an image that was free.). Anyone know what the effect is ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Prisma filter creates a derivative work of the original, but does the filter cause any copyright of Prisma to subsist in said work, given the filter is an algorithim? I know this may sound like I'm being overly pedantic but.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me the filter is no different than using, say, Photoshop's content aware fill. If you photoshop an image you took, no matter how much, you still own the copyright, so this should be OK. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (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.
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.
There are numerous free equivalents since the complex is under construction right now. Several buildings are either complete or almost complete. epicgenius (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The picture is not of the Hudson Yards Project as it is. It is of the Hudson Yards Project as it is expected to be, a very different thing. Any picture taken now would not replace it, because it would not function in the same way this image does, as a rendering of the expectations of the designers and developers. I don't believe that any free image would be available which would perform this function, as they would all have to ultimately originate from the same place: the architects and developers of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not enhance readers' understanding of the article beyond what is provided by the existing free images. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many times, and for how many months, is this going to be relisted? It's already going into its third month. Face it, the conclusion on this is no consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2017 (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.
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: no consensus. There aren't enough people interested in the issue to establish a consensus. Sandstein 08:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image being used to identify a possibly still living individual. The file's rationale claims that the subject is deceased, but there is nothing cited in the article which also this to be verified this. Per WP:BDP, Wikipedia assumes that an individuals is alive to age 115 unless their death can be confirmed by examining reliable sources. Since that is not the case here, I believe we have to assume that this is a violation of WP:NFCC#1 and just not assume that Goldston is dead based upon thisforum post. If a reliable source can be found verifying his death, then I suggest changing the licensing to ((Non-free biog-pic)) since claiming this is a historical image is a bit of a stretch because being old and being historic are not really the same thing with respect to non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The period of 115 years is unjustifiably long. "Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71.5 years (68 years and 4 months for males and 72 years and 8 months for females) over the period 2010–2015 " - see List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy. Wikipedia policy in this matter needs revision.......Paul venter (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To see whether people agree that "subject possibly still alive" is a sufficient rationale to assume WP:NFCC#1 non-compliance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 4 July 2017 (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.
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.
Questionable copyright status. Files are claimed free (((PD-AustraliaGov))), but uploader has also added detailed fair use rationale. Unclear if these are suitable for Wikipedia. -FASTILY05:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Your concerns are ambiguous, unsubstantiated and likely trifling. Please state exactly what your specific concern is, citing a specific Wikipedia policy. Please also estimate the magnitude of the risk to all stakeholders. Thank you. Jkokavec (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all public domain. However information must be added to the file descriptions to say what they are, who made them, and what date they were published, so that public domain nature is readily apparent. Anything published in 1966 or before by an Australian government (not just the commonwealth government is now in the public domain. Since the government has declared this to be in the public domain after 50 years, this public domain nature is also valid in the USA. Any fair use templates should be removed, and if anything is used under fair use only, it is probably not fair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Jkokavec: Can you specify the sources and origin of the images? Otherwise they will have to be deleted due to lac of sources/questionable copyright status
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: All of the above files were photographs taken by Jkokavec at "THE LAND TITLES OFFICE, HOBART, TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Jkokavec, please add the source information to each file, per what Graeme said, and then we can move forward here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar02:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graeme Bartlett. And PD is worldwide, per VRTS ticket # 2017062010010417. The original documents' source/date/author info should be added, and the irrelevant fair use rationale text should be removed, like I have just done for the first image [1]. - Evad37[talk]03:37, 24 July 2017 (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.
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.
I uploaded the side label of the US vinyl single because the US release was successful in its home country. The song wasn't charted in Germany, yet the German artwork is used. Hmm... the artwork was also used for a Dutch release. My preference is keep the US vinyl and delete the other. However, I don't mind other kinds of votes as the single was a hit in both the US and the Netherlands. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any sort of music guidelines on preferring to use cover art or the actual disc itself as the infobox image? It seems like cover art is more frequently used. While it was more influential in the US, I feel like cover art would be more recognizable than the disc itself. Sergecross73msg me19:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer picture sleeves Images that prominently feature the title and artist name and/or have an depiction of the artist or something to tie it to the artist, album, tour, etc., serve to better identify the subject than the generic record label, where only the "fine print" identifies the subject. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 and Ojorojo, Wikipedia:Non-free content doesn't mention preference; WP:NFCC is very subjective. The NFC says that a cover art may be acceptable but must be contextually significant. In my view, the generic vinyl side label is significant enough. The whole "other stuff exists" should not apply to every file. Therefore, let's stick to the single release itself. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation says that... a free image is preferable (e.g. Rebel Rebel, especially since the picture sleeve of non-UK release was deleted per FFD), but an irreplaceable non-free multimedia content is acceptable as long as it meets NFCC policy and fair use. In this case, to me, the picture sleeve doesn't meet the standards because it doesn't help increase the readers' understanding of the song and its release. Instead, the picture sleeve is used to distract readers into looking at the image of the artist and/or the titling layout of the song.
Also, without image caption per MOS:CAPTION, readers would be confused and misled into believing that the picture sleeve is of the particular American release. That's why I added it. Also, the picture sleeve is used in German and Dutch releases. When originally released, the song was better charted and more receptive in the US than the Netherlands. I saw that the song was better charted in Norway and Sweden, but I could not figure out how the song was released in those countries.
Agree with George's point about captions. If an image is used that is something other than the release listed in the infobox, it should have a caption, e.g.,
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2017+May+15%23File%3APrisma+%28app%29+-+Tokyo+filter.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tokyo_filter.jpg){kind=link}
_(slightly_cropped).png){kind=link}
_(slightly_cropped).png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2017+June+2%23File%3ASmooth+island+%28Colour+version+of+survey%29+%28slightly+cropped%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_(slightly_cropped).png){kind=link}
_(slightly_cropped).png&action=history){kind=link}
_(slightly_cropped).png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASmooth_Island_-_Norfolk_John_Wise_-_Property_Title.JPG&type=revision&diff=792045738&oldid=791002583){kind=link}
