Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2023 April 1: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:09, 1 April 2023 editSPECIFICO (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits →File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:22, 1 April 2023 edit undoGoodDay (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers495,219 edits →File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG Next edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:
	::I'm also not seeing something akin to the non-free justification for something a-la-] where the image is used as a means of ''primary visual identification'' of a particular story. If the article were solely about the ''NY Post'' story, it ''could'' make sense to have the cover image as being the primary visual identification, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that the article is solely about that single story. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)		::I'm also not seeing something akin to the non-free justification for something a-la-] where the image is used as a means of ''primary visual identification'' of a particular story. If the article were solely about the ''NY Post'' story, it ''could'' make sense to have the cover image as being the primary visual identification, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that the article is solely about that single story. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. Actually, the article is overwhelmingly about that single story and the fact that it was a tabloid Fox headline days before the election. It may take a few days to get more information organized to support this, but if I understand you correctly, I believe the declaration via the cover is essential and so described by the weight of RS. The reason I mentioned the RfC was not to suggest that local consensus trumps policy, but rather that editors were aware of the test of significance and fair use when they commented, and did not think this would be mere decoration. Actually we removed a prior image that was too close to decoration or referential.]] 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)		:::Thanks. Actually, the article is overwhelmingly about that single story and the fact that it was a tabloid Fox headline days before the election. It may take a few days to get more information organized to support this, but if I understand you correctly, I believe the declaration via the cover is essential and so described by the weight of RS. The reason I mentioned the RfC was not to suggest that local consensus trumps policy, but rather that editors were aware of the test of significance and fair use when they commented, and did not think this would be mere decoration. Actually we removed a prior image that was too close to decoration or referential.]] 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
			:We already had an RFC on whether or not to include said-image & the result was ''include''. ] (]) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:22, 1 April 2023

< March 31	April 2 >

April 1

For not so serious requests on this day see Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/April Fools' Day 2023.

File:Pinkheadshot.jpg

Deleted as copyvio on commons, linking to http://witconference.org/speakers/ --Minorax 02:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Riaz M T pic in movie Onnum Onnum Moonu.jpg

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax 03:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Riaz M T location still Dustbin movie.jpg

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Riaz M T Adoor Bhasi Best Actor Award.jpg

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Riaz M T receiving special honor from Chief Minister of Kerala V S Achuthanandan.jpg

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Shaktisinh.jpg

2 remaining uploads, low-res, no metadata. See Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2018_February_22#File:Shaktisinh_addressing_public_gathering_in_his_constituency.jpg. Doubtful own work. --Minorax 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Shaktisinh Gohil at satyagrah program.jpg

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG

Appears to be used in a decorative manner, as the cover itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary in the article nor can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article only by this image. As such, this violates WP:NFC#CS and should be deleted for failing the criterion of contextual significance in the sole place where this non-free image is used. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Disappointing. Please see the article talk page close by @Callanecc: and discussion about inclusion. At most, thearticle text might need a tweak to clarify significance. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

RS relate the controversy to its origin in the Post cover story, see .e.g. here in the first paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See also, here discussion of how many post cover pages could result from the revelation. It may take a few days for editors to parse what's in the article text, but the significance of the Post cover is well documented in the cited sources and was agreed by active and uninvolved editors in the cited RfC. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk and Callanecc: I have added a couple of words to the lead to indicate the specific relevance of the cover image here. Hawk, please let me know if there is further information or article clarification required. The significance is widely noted in the sources currently cited for the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Post published a front-page story. My understanding is that the particular image of that story is decorative in the context of the article; nothing about the cover is the subject of commentary, even though the story is discussed. WP:NFCC is not something that talk page consensus can get around; it's an exemption doctrine in line with the WMF Licensing Policy, which notes that s of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted. There needs to be something about the cover itself that gets sourced commentary, not merely text existence of the cover story.

I'm also not seeing something akin to the non-free justification for something a-la-A Rape on Campus where the image is used as a means of primary visual identification of a particular story. If the article were solely about the NY Post story, it could make sense to have the cover image as being the primary visual identification, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that the article is solely about that single story. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the article is overwhelmingly about that single story and the fact that it was a tabloid Fox headline days before the election. It may take a few days to get more information organized to support this, but if I understand you correctly, I believe the declaration via the cover is essential and so described by the weight of RS. The reason I mentioned the RfC was not to suggest that local consensus trumps policy, but rather that editors were aware of the test of significance and fair use when they commented, and did not think this would be mere decoration. Actually we removed a prior image that was too close to decoration or referential. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on whether or not to include said-image & the result was include. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)