Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:50, 20 January 2016

January 20

File:Mangalashtak Once More Soundtrack.jpg

File:Mangalashtak Once More Soundtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IamRDOfficial (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess all film articles have their soundtrack cover picture IamRDOfficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamRDOfficial (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• If they do, they shouldn't. Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:LPK Soundtrack.jpg

File:LPK Soundtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IamRDOfficial (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Political banner, Valeriu Pasat, 2010.jpg

File:Political banner, Valeriu Pasat, 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gr8dude (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Religion in Moldova since the article is about a more generalized topic than the subject in the image. The subject represented in this file is for Moldovan Orthodox Church, but it may fail WP:NFCC#8 there as well since it may not be representative in that subject in a way to provide contextual significance. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Tennents Irish Cup.jpeg

File:Tennents Irish Cup.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reddev87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The fair-use rationale here is incorrect. Not only does this file identify the subject of the article, but it seems to also have a picture on the left side that unique enough to be eligible for copyright that does not represent the subject of the article. Thus, this file is a WP:NFCC#8 issue. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Hilberg2.jpg

File:Hilberg2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. As noted at length on the talk page of The Destruction of the European Jews, there is no convincing rationale for the presence of that image in the article. The need for a picture of the book's author for "visual identification" purposes was asserted but not demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you notify the uploader of this FFD?--Elvey 07:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's is that discussion; I've moved it here.

Picture of Hilberg

Elvey, there is no reason why the article should include a picture of the author of The Destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg. Hilberg's physical appearance has no relevance to understanding the book. The picture is therefore useless. Readers can look at the article about Hilberg if they happen to care what he looked like. It is up to you to suggest an actual reason why this particular article about a book should contain a picture of its author - the overwhelming majority of articles about books rightly do not include pictures of their authors. Nothing you say in this edit summary gives a valid reason for including that irrelevant picture, which manifestly does not "illustrate the topic of the article" nor is being "used for commentary on a particular topic". The non free-use rationale given ("This image is used as the primary identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned") is totally inadequate as it does not explain, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text." Hilberg can be identified through text, as a historian, so there is no need for a non-free picture. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We disagree. I see fair use - visual identification of the person in question, at the top of the main article on his work. AGAIN: As I told you on my talk page: You need to either drop this or follow (WP:DEL, which in this case means) the WP:FFD procedure. If the FFD goes your way, fine, I'll stand corrected.--Elvey 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" do you not understand, Elvey? The rationale given for including a picture of Hilberg in the article at File:Hilberg2.jpg is so that he can be identified ("This image is used as the primary visual identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned. No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question. As the subject of the image is deceased, use of this image for the stated purpose constitutes fair use)." If you think about it carefully, Elvey, you might realize that a picture of Hilberg is not required to properly identify him. He can be effectively identified, in writing, as what he is, namely an historian. That's precisely why most book articles do not have pictures of their authors: no "visual identification" is needed. I have no intention of dropping this matter. Stop edit warring to restore this obvious copyright violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It does, IMO explain "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text", thusly: "This image is used as the primary visual identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned. No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question." I'm allowed to disagree. As I said, "If the FFD goes your way, fine, I'll stand corrected." Many book articles do have pictures of their authors, so to me there's no "obvious copyright violation". It's possible there's a copyright violation, but it's highly doubtful IMO. It's quite possible there's an NFCC violation, but I think reasonable people can disagree on that. --Elvey 07:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Contextual significance. 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." Is it the case that the picture of Hilberg significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, a book Hilberg wrote? The obvious answer is no. The violation of NFCC could hardly be clearer. (Incidentally, though there may be a - small - number of articles about books that do have pictures of their authors, in my experience, they are very much the exception. You may wish to review WP:OTHERCRAP, Elvey.) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You brought it up when you wrote "most book articles do not have pictures of their authors", FNC. Take a chill pill; stop edit warring. I'm seeing it's likely you're upset because your own content was recently deleted - as your talk page indicates. Chill. I had nothing to do with that. --Elvey 08:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what "your own content" refers to, and this matter is in any case irrelevant and does not belong on this page. Stick to the relevant issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and insist you have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't care now. For the record, the content you have deleted three times this week is a short ASCII character string. That string certainly doesn't violate NFCC, because it's not non-free content at all. The string itself is free content. --Elvey 08:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)