Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
1
Edit the file page.
Add {{Ffd|log=2024 December 29}} to the file page.
2
Create its FfD subsection.
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2024 December 29}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 December 29}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instagram post is not sufficient to establish artwork as official album cover. The large size of this upload is a violation of the non-free rationale of minimal usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
Criterion 9, because the file is used in non-article pages, including disambiguation pages, and non-article namespaces either other than or in addition to articles and article namespaces. — Ирука1323:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is being used in a WP:Set index article of these two characters as a visual means and provides the contextual significance of the subjects. It is not an actual DAB page, as explained at WP:SETNOTDAB, and that ought to fall in line with the exceptions of the criteria. I see no reason to warrant a deletion. It was also just re-uploaded with a higher-quality version before the nom erroneously removed it from the SIA Batman and Superman where it is most relevant, which the nom did not really provide any proper explanation for in their odd edit summary. This nomination is over a misunderstanding of a technicality and lacks sufficient rationale or merit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, you're correct. That image being in this article doesn't violate any rules that I know of.
..I brought the community's attention to a situation that I think violates NFCC - "my job here is done". — Ирука1301:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs to be explicitly stated that SIAs are an exception because they are not DABs (which it seems is necessary), then that is something that ought to be handled at the Criterion page, not by trying to make an example out of one lone file. Since this file does not violate any rules, there is no reason it ought to be deleted or discussed in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trailblazer101's rationale, the reader's understanding of the subjects is increased from the file's existence, and also, set index considerations hold true. BarntToust17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука1316:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It provides a significant understanding by showcasing who both of these characters are directly in the SIA without having our readers go to another article to figure that out. There is nothing wrong with how this image is being used in this SIA. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an SIA, I consider it to still be a work in progress to cover the topic of these two characters as a duo, similarly to fellow comics SIA Hawkeye (comics), as opposed to simply being a list of relevant links with not much meaningful content. I would still argue that my above rationale stands for that regard, I have just been precluded from making such changes due to other commitments. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Converting the file's licensing to non-free and adding non-free use rationale might take care of the FOP issue cited above by Stefan2, but it creates different issues that now need to be sorted out. A non-free image of this sculpture would certainly be justifiable in a stand-alone article about the work itself if such an article existed; however, since there's no such article, the next best option is perhaps in the article about the artist who created it as an example of their creative work. So, the file's non-free use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir is probably OK as an example of her work. The other uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall) are not so clear and just adding a non-free use rationale for them doesn't make their uses valid. Erling Blöndal Bengtsson died in 2013, which means a non-free image of him can possibly be used; however, there are probably much better ones to chose from that this particular image, and there might even be a free or public domain image of him that could be used instead. The other use in the article about the Harp concert hall doesn't, at least in my opinion, meet WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS or even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since a link from that article to the article about Pálsdóttir seem fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep in only Erling Blöndal Bengtsson or delete. Possibly, a photo of Bengtsson himself would be nice, but I think a sculptor of him is also nice. I don't see enough critical commentary to justify usages in other articles; the whole image itself (of the sculpture) not contextually significant to the sculptor or the hall that holds the sculpture there.George Ho (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC); struck, 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use in the article about Ólöf Pálsdóttir could be justified as an example of her work, assuming there are no freely licensed of public domain images of her work that can't be found to use instead; however, I disagree that this would be OK to use in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson, and it would be much preferable to use a non-free photo of him instead if a freely licensed or public domain image can't be found. The sculpture is nice perhaps, but nice is an insufficient justification for the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain about Ólöf Pálsdóttir: she's already a sculptor when you identify her. Is being a "sculptor" insufficient to readers? Sure, a photo of her work can help readers understand her skills as a sculptor, but the main issue is whether the biographical article about her really needs the photo and whether readers can already understand her without an image of her work like this. Well, I've seen other cases where a photo of a work is placed in an article about an artist or a sculptor or a painter or... Well, this doesn't mean this is no exception, right? Meanwhile, maybe the Bengtsson article doesn't need the sculptor image after all? I can't find ways to counter your argument, so... well, I struck out my suggestion then. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Icelandic copyright law treats buildings and outdoor sculptures the same. Both can have a picture if said picture is not used for commercial purposes. If the template does not fit because of US laws then it just needs an Iceland specific template (come to think of it the French have the same basic copyright rule, maybe join them in one template?). The template is not a valid deletion reason. Snævar (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an Icelandic Wikipedia and this file is uploaded locally there, then perhaps an Icelandic specific template could be made to work. However, since the servers for English Wikipedia are located in the US, English Wikipedia goes by US copyright law. This means c:COM:FOP US matters here and there's no freedom of panorama for 3D works publicly displayed in the US. So, the sculpture imagery needs to be treated as non-free for any photo of it to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is a non-free photo. I guess what I am saying is that "Template:Non-free 3D art" is sufficent for the image. It's use is allowed per US laws in article 107 (fair use doctrine). Then due to the Berne Convention and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy the local laws matter too - which in this case is Iceland. In Iceland, the use is allowed as an non-free photo based on article 16 of the Icelandic copyright act - it says that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes (c:COM:FOP Iceland) and article 14, which is similar but more restrictive than article 107 in the US, allows use for criticism purposes. Snævar (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free content needs to meet Wikipedia' non-free content use policy. Non-free content needs to have an acceptable non-free copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation. Changing the file's license to {{Non-free 3D art}} is fine for the copyright license part, but adding a non-free copyright license in and of itself doesn't make a file automatically policy compliant. The non-free use rationale part of equation also needs to be valid as explained in WP:NFCCE, and "valid" in this content means the use meets all ten of the criteria listed here. I think that could be possible for the file's use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir, but not really possible for the uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall). So, none of the discussion related to the non-free use of the file has really anything to do with Iceland's FOP. What matters is whether the consensus established here is that there's at least one way to currently use the file in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If there is, the file can be kept; if there isn't the file will end up deleted per WP:NFCC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#10c requires that the FUR must be relevant to the use, but none of the FURs seem relevant to the use of the picture.
The use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir looks fine. Usually we allow a small number of non-free pictures of works by an artist or sculptor if no free pictures exist.
Erling Blöndal Bengtsson is dead. If no free pictures exist, we often allow a non-free picture. However, are we certain that there is no free picture? He lived for a long time in Denmark, and there is {{PD-Denmark50}} which provides a short copyright term for many photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Danish photo may still be copyrightable outside Denmark, even when fifty years passed after author's lifetime, if the photo was still copyrighted in 1996. George Ho (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Denmark, the copyright to a photo expires 50 years after it was taken (not 50 years after the death of the photographer), or 25 years after it was taken if taken before 1970. Photos taken before 1970 and first published in Denmark are ineligible for URAA restoration, but may have a subsisting copyright. Presumably, most pre-1970 Danish photos are in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). Also, I did not find any information that the photo was published under a free license (WP:FREER 3D). — Ирука1301:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Per the "Contextual Significance" clause at WP:NFCCP. The file doesn't serve a compelling purpose for its inclusion other than to illustrate the mere fact that the subject graduated from school. Another free cropped image has already been provided, deeming this file unnecessary; nothing of encyclopedic value would be lost if this non-free file is removed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука1300:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.
Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.
The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.
Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.
Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided this because I saw several similar images in your contribution - unlike this one, the source of those images is only other images, although the file description says that you are their author. And also because of the lack of metadata. And, of course, when comparing the images as such.
Please provide a link to the discussion in which the image was accepted.
The album cover is a for an alternative version of the album, released months after the original. It is not substantially different and has not been subject to critical commentary therefore it fails WP:NFCC, the omission of the cover does not harm the topic. The cover is also of too high quality for a non-free image. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question if facing the vortex at a different angle and having KP emerge from it along with showing a new butterfly doesn't qualify as "substantially different" to the standard edition's cover, then what would? I was sure that counted for something. Image resolution could potentially be reduced. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per reasonings of IndianBio. Difference, if cited properly, could be explained in descriptive words. Its exclusion/inclusion neither hinders/helps a reader understand the article. livelikemusic(TALK!)16:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#5: not encyclopedic. The character of the article is turned almost with his back, and is in a pose in which it is difficult to see him. In addition, the part of the image he occupies is barely a third of the possible. + the image in the infobox includes this version of the character. — Ирука1306:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sricsi Uh, I don’t really get how this breaks WP:NFCC#8? The video screenshot I uploaded shows Bruno waving the flag, and that’s something a bunch of critics mentioned in their coverage. It seemed like an important moment, so I figured adding it would help make the article better. Lililolol (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic”
I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Launchballer00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep About whether "Unlock It" doesn't have a cover is something I disagree for the following reasons:
It's true that in Spotify, all the singles Pop 2 show the album's cover and don't have an artwork of its own. However, Spotify it's not the only source that can determine if a single has its own cover or not.
The cover I uploaded comes from a post of Charli's official Tumblr account. Kim Petras also uploaded the same image to her Facebook.
It was designed by the same person who did the cover for "Out of My Head". From what it seems, both covers are from a series of pictures created to promote the mixtape. They follow the same style so its safe to assume that Charli hired a person to do them and its not fanmade content.
Regardless of whether a song doesn't have a cover on streaming platforms, other articles have used promotionalimages for singles.
Strong Keep As I am not sure since it's been done on multiple song articles, can a picture that is promoted by the artist be used ?Because if so strong keep as Kim Petras had posted it to her Facebook years ago. If this however is not eligible for fair use on song articles then delete. Edit: Actually strong keep. It serves it's purpose, showing who the song is featuring with the main singer listed as well, not just any photo nor is it fanmade. This0k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit03:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try to bring some clarity to this mess. The dispute here seems to be whether to use File:Indian_Bank_logo.svg or File:Indian_Bank_logo_2023.png as the logo for Indian Bank. The SVG has an unclear source (it claims to have been extracted from a PDF, but what specific PDF is not specified). The PNG seems to be identical to the logo that appears at the top of the website. On the other hand, it's generally agreed that vector graphics are preferable to raster graphics, all else equal. If this gets no more comments in another week, it will probably be closed as no consensus, but I'm giving people one last chance to sort this out. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery *it has begun...22:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Indian_Bank_logo_2023.png is a real logo. Not because it was copied from the official website, but because it graphically matches the original logo by more than 97%. File:Indian_Bank_logo.svg is not a real logo. Not because it was not copied from the official source, but because it does not graphically match the original logo.
Please open the .svg-version in a high enough resolution and compare it with the original. Please open the list of deleted files of the editor VNC200, and/or their talk page. Please read the comment to the deleted message on the Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 15 page. Please reread what the author of the nominated file writes here.
We should not use low-quality images when we can use high-(or at least official)-quality ones. And we should not create precedents for doing so. — Ирука1302:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first FfD so apologizes in advanced I believe this fails NFC8 as it adds little context. The in article caption states that it depicts Dexter finding a body he previously disposed off while the image is simply Dexter standing around. It is unclear what he's doing Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I uploaded the photo.
Dexter is in shock after finding a body he dumped in an ocean laying on a table.
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука1308:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains images of Daleks, including a white one. And I think everyone, having an image of a Dalek in front of them, can imagine "a levitating above a staircase white Dalek." (WP:NFCC#1) There is no point in keeping a non-free image in the article just to confirm the fact that Daleks can fly (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука1312:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wholly unnecessary image in the grand scheme of things. This also could be just as easily remade by taking one of our many free-use Dalek images and placing it above an image of a staircase. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Note that FoP is allowed for 3D works in the United Kingdom, so we shouldn't have copyright problems in re-creating one here.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).
It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Plots subsection primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. While the Development section briefly mentions the game's inspiration from real-life buildings and statues, using this specific non-free screenshot is not essential to convey this information. The screenshot's current placement in the Plots section is inappropriate and does not directly contribute to the understanding of the game's narrative. Therefore, the non-free screenshot should be removed. Wcam (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copy/pasting the following discursive comment posted to Talk:The Computer Programme a couple of days ago, because I'm going to have only limited time for the internet over the next few days, it's almost 1 am in the morning here now, and I don't have time to edit it down to something shorter. Sorry.
I have disputed this deletion rationale, with the following counter-notice on the file page:
[The assertion] that NFC used for identification in a section needs to be the subject significant sourced critical commentary of the image ... is not a requirement set out in the WP:NFCC, nor WP:NFCI #1, nor indeed anywhere on the WP:NFC page.
Examples where such cover images are used where there is not sourced critical commentary of the image are widespread across Wikipedia, including eg the cover image of the Target novelisation of pretty much every classic Doctor Who serial -- suggesting that what the nominator suggests is not the established rule.
I am therefore restoring the image to the article, as satisfying WP:NFCI #1, and will open a thread at Talk:The Computer Programme as to why inclusion of the image should be considered to add something significant to reader's understanding of the topic of the article.
In relation to NFCC #8, it's worth looking at why we have WP:NFCI #1 at all. The overwhelming view, at least according to the 2012 RfC on it is that WP:NFCI #1 is an embodiment of NFCC #8 -- we show cover images because showing how an item was presented is in itself a valuable addition to reader understanding about the topic.
(One might also add that it very helpfully assists reader identification and re-identification of the item under discussion; helps readers to recall what they may already know about the item; also that cover art is typically only quite a limited taking of the whole product, proportionally; and that to make the subject more readily identifiable was the very purpose for which it was produced. -- All of which is also why it's an essentially uncontroversial legal use).
That reasoning doesn't go away if we're talking about related media (or alternate album covers), if the article recognises those releases have significance in their own right, and therefore devotes editorial content to them: the cover is valuable because the release was significant, and this is how it was presented. So eg this discussion at WT:NFC, and eg the wording at Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover, which has been upheld for almost 15 years now: An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternative cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included.
It's also perhaps worth noting, looking at the WT:NFC archives, that whenever proposals have been made at WT:NFC to add a requirement for sourced critical commentary of the image for second or alternate covers, they have never been adopted.
In the case of The Computer Book, we consider it important enough in it own right that we devote a section and five references to it. We also note that it topped the UK non-fiction book lists for weeks when it appeared in 1982. In my judgment that makes it significant enough as an artefact in its own right, that it is of value for readers to know what it looked like, per WP:NFCI #1; and that seeing the image may also trigger useful recollections of it.
I think the image also adds usefully to the article in that the image shows what the book and tv producers presumably considered to be what potential buyers of the book would recognise as a particularly representative scene from the TV series -- showing Chris Serle in front of a BBC micro holding forth about how the machine might be used to hold eg a database of slides. That depiction of key elements, and overall representativeness, also represents something helpful to our readers, and adds to their understanding of the TV show.
But the fundamental case for inclusion here is that the book represents tie-in media that is of significance in its own right as part of the topic of the article, and for that reason the logic behind NFCI #1 therefore applies. Jheald (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deeply confused AI-generated diagram where most of the text is illegible and where the overall image of two conjoined birds with glowing blue marbles in their eyes and chests makes no sense. Belbury (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. + WP:NFC#UUI#2 // Since the visual design of box set in the article described extremely few, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). // Examples of acceptable use: [1], [2]. — Ирука1305:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===December 29===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+21%23File%3AWHAM+%28Who+Hard+as+Me%29+-+Lil+Baby.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png&action=history){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+November+27%23File%3AThe+Musician+%28Erling+Bl%C3%B6ndal+Bengtsson%29+by+%C3%93l%C3%B6f+P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Ólöf_Pálsdóttir.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+24%23File%3AApt.+%28Screensho%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+28%23File%3AThe+Computer+Book+%28BBC+1982%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://i.discogs.com/AEOkvnNOKbtl0CN7JZQWz_qiFxXZhKcm-m-cTAbKaqs/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:600/w:465/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTQ2NzI4/MTktMTY2MTMwMzA1/My0xMDU5LmpwZWc.jpeg){kind=link}
