Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25[edit]

File:WQAD ABC 8 Moline.png[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 as G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poor quality Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not of poor quality. It was found from a website that had it as high quality. Brainyshark03 00:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see the rough edges. @Sammi Brie: What's your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainyshark03 Why are we uploading low-quality logos from Fandom? A low-res logo is one thing when it's an old station. This is unacceptable. I do see Tegna's logos are kinda low-res (250x53 is [1]), but this is bad. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Brainyshark's other uploads. He might have slapped the new ABC logo onto existing station logos. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best to get the best quality possible. Brainyshark03 04:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find logos that have the best quality possible. I am trying to find logos that are the closest to what they would be with the new logo. Brainyshark03 04:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at some logos on Fandom, you can see the new logo stuck on the old logo. Take KERO-TV in Bakersfield, for example. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/e/e5/KERO_23ABC_2021.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20220509070538 Brainyshark03 04:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: I reported Brainyshark to WP:ANI. You might want to talk to him over there. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r: I think that was premature of you and overly escalatory. I did decide to revert the page to using File:WQAD 1.svg. WQAD has yet to update any of their logos on web to include the redrawn ABC logo. I will make a comment at the ANI. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is indeed a very poor quality logo rendering. I also question the use of a fandom site as a source for a current logo. Their website does not use this arrangement of letters, numbers and ABC element for the logo. It in fact a horizontal arrangement depicted with File:WQAD 1.svg. I can find no evidence that this stacked arrangement is actually used by the station anywhere and may in fact be just made up by somebody and posted on fandom. If you need a current logo for an existing organsitation, the organsation's web site would be the authorative source for such and image and not the user posted content at Fandom -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I got a little too ahead of myself when changing logos of ABC stations. I will continue to change them but only if it has a valid logo. I will make a list of logos that should be deleted. Brainyshark03 12:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the station website and have it as high quality as posssible. Brainyshark03 12:52, 25 October 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:Exorcist angiogram scene.webm[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: Tagged for non-free reduce -FASTILY 04:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2m39 feels as though it strays beyond what might be considered a "clip" length, and resolution is over SD. -- AtomCrusher 21:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone better skilled with the tech than me can reduce the resolution, fine, go ahead. As for the length, we have never set any maximum length for film clips as we have for music (and I think even that's too rigid). I agree that something like 5 minutes would probably be too long in any event, but as for this scene, that was as short as I could get it without leaving any of the encyclopedic value out—Paul Bateson's participation in the scene, its realism and historical importance, and the general importance of that scene to the film—all of which are supported by reliably sourced commentary in the accompanying text or elsewhere in the article. To be honest I didn't realize the scene was that long until I prepared the video ... it feels shorter, and probably certainly did to all the people in the audience who were induced to vomit by it during the film's original release. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 05:22, 25 October 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:YvonneEllimanIDontKnowHowToLoveHim.ogg[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: No consensus to delete, however tagged for non-free reduce -FASTILY 04:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent limit, violating WP:NFCC#3b. Fixable if it complies with WP:NFCC#8, i.e. is contextually significant. However, I'm unconvinced that it helps readers contextually understand the whole song. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce file to fit MOS:SAMPLE or Replace with smaller file, since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the article passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 05:22, 25 October 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:Sanjay Hegde.jpeg[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 ⚡ 14:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as VRT permission received for 5 months. Upon reviewing the associated VRT ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission is going to be confirmed FASTILY 08:21, 25 October 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:Sonnia Agu 2022.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 ⚡ 14:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as VRT permission received for 5 months. Upon reviewing the associated VRT ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission is going to be confirmed FASTILY 08:22, 25 October 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:Alexander dennis logo.png[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 ⚡ 14:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superseded by File:Alexander Dennis logo.svg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 07:18, 29 October 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:VIII Congress of the Association of Writers of Yugoslavia Logo.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8. It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". This is not the logo of the Association itself, but of one of its congresses. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor proposing the delition is right that the file is poster used only for one of the Congresses. However, the fact is clearly stated in article (to avoid any misunderstanding). I don't think that there is a general logo available out there on the internet (or maybe I am not skilful enough to find it)? If this file is to be removed (and now it is used as the primary visual for the article) I would really appreciate more appropriate non-free or ideally free file. In case there is more appropriate file, this one would naturally not be used as the primary visual in the infobox anymore and as such it would be deleted but right now I believe the usage is appropriate and proportional (also, it may be useful to establish if anyone in fact claims or is entitled to any copyrights from that ex-Yugoslav association, as for any commercial interests-I would guess they don't really exist?).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the poster is not fit for the purpose of identification as claimed in the non-free use rationale and the removal of the poster is not detrimental to the understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. If there is no logo for the orginisation, then there should be no image serving as visual identification for the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 1 November 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:Terry Glynn, Wycombe Wanderers FC footballer, August 1981.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 ⚡ 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source at Flickr states: "From a bought photograph at the time. No copyright infringement intended." This suggests the Flickr user is not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 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.