Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 18

November 18

File:TracyStraussHechlerDarinStrauss2011.png

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.

The result of the discussion was: delete, indeed--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file looks like a TV grab Sreejith K (talk) 05:11, 18 November 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.

File:Joe Glick, lightweight boxer in the 1920's.jpg

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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the fact of publication is proven, it is impossible to talk about the license of the file. — Ирука¹³ 06:15, 18 November 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.

File:Robert Runcie 1981.jpg

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.

The result of the discussion was: keep, per nomination I removed the file from the list and also the non-free rationale for the list--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of image in table on List of archbishops of Canterbury violates WP:NFTABLE. Thus, should be removed from that article, although use at [Robert Runcie]] article seems okay, as no non-free images look to exist of him. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 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.

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be noted first that George Ho initially nominated this file for deletion using a false claim that this song is in the public domain when it wasn't - [1]. I provided the information that it is in fact not in the public domain because it was copyrighted in the 1950s (and someone actually paid half a million dollars for the rights to publish it when it was used in the film) in the discussion, whereupon he "discovered" (as he puts it here) that it's not in the public domain. I challenged the deletion then because it is entirely wrong to speedy delete something based on false information, but here he wants it deleted again and for me to provide counterarguments here, so here I am.

This recording is without doubt the most prominent one of all the versions recorded. It won a Grammy (the soundtrack album it's in also won a Grammy), sold a million copies, and spawned numerous covers. It there is one music sample to be used in the Man Of Constant Sorrow article, this should be the one. As for contextual significance, its use can be justified per WP:NFC#CS where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. All recordings are unique, and it is impossible to correctly represent the song performance without using the actual music itself, for example its phrasing, arrangement, interpretation, the accompanying instrumentation, nuances, etc. Different recordings may also have different tunes (e.g. the recording by the Stanley Brothers is completely different to the ones by Joan Baez or Bob Dylan), so you can't actually use the scores from (presumably copyright-free) old recordings (e.g. by Emry Arthur) to represent the version by the Soggy Bottom Boys. They have different tunes. The only way you can correctly identify the song is by using the actual music itself. You certainly cannot use another versions to represent this version in the O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack) article. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both Man of Constant Sorrow & O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage of the clip in either article. -Fastily 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people ignore WP:NFC#CS that clearly states that commentary is just one of two ways contextual significance can be met, the other one is as quoted above - only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article, and I believe this sound clip meets that criterion. Hzh (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two "ways" are just common circumstances; well, there are more than two. Honestly, I don't think the article has sufficient due weight and balance to justify the file's significance to the topic in question.

Currently, it's used in the "Origin" section of the song article, according to mobile view. I don't see the section describing what the sample is supposed to demonstrate. If it were used in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section, as I suppose, the sample wouldn't make much difference other than doing the same thing that other materials are doing, like links and article text: drive readers into seeking (or buying) a full recording or other recordings of the song.

Song recognition (or identity or demonstration or whatever you call it) probably doesn't exemplify a depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject. I'm unsure why you think the content heard in the sample exemplifies the "prominent aspect" of the song, which existed and was (somewhat) notable for years before the version, or of the version itself, whose "prominent aspect" is yet to be determined. Why is this aspect "prominent" to the song?

Also, what about this: its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? You were implicitly assuming that readers wouldn't understand the very old song without the sample, weren't you? Unfortunately, reading the song article, I don't see how the sample helps readers contextually understand the song in one way or another, and I think readers would be fine understanding the whole song without the sample.

The sample is also used in the "Development and sound" section of the soundtrack article. However, I don't see how it depicts the "prominent aspect" of the whole soundtrack album itself, and I don't see how this aspect is "prominent" to the soundtrack in question. I'm reading just brief descriptions about the song itself over there. George Ho (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version, so the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect. The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song, and the most prominent version of a song would exemplify that song. I believe it was originally in the infobox, you can move it back, but it matters not, because that version is the most representative recording of the song and helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. Ideally we can add the older version (presumably copyright-free), so you can hear how the song has changed, but the old version is not representative of the song (no one sings that version now, it is no longer the same song), but the one by Soggy Bottom Boys is. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song. That's the case of using the whole recording, which automatically fails the "minimal extent of use" criterion... and the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version. Again, the whole recording. that version is the most representative recording of the song. Doesn't look like a case of a short sample but rather the whole recording.

helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. I've seen others use the same argument that what a song sounds like exemplifies "contextual significance", and sometimes the argument works only when text either contains hard-to-understand words or suffices in length to justify use. I see neither in both articles.

the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect Since it's not that obvious to you, I can't help wonder whether I already said above is sufficient. In this case, I just heard a character (or George Clooney?) sing one of verses throughout most of the sample. The sample starts with the ending of a chorus. I don't see text describing the verse itself, Clooney's vocals, background music, or anything else that makes omitting the short random sample detrimental to such understanding. Using some random portion just to identify the (portion of the) song doesn't exemplify "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself using your own criteria like using full song, text length or comprehensibility, and you should take that to the community for discussion first. Just like the way you use you own random criteria to argue for the deletion of files (e.g. chart positions of this song to determine if its infobox deserves an image) in other discussion, take that to the community first to gain a consensus before using such arguments. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. I wasn't serious about the idea. The suggestion was just sarcastic, but I see how I came across as too serious to you.

The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. A clip might or might not give a general idea about the song... or the specific recording. Nonetheless, it may not illustrate contextual significance to the topic in question, usually a song. In this case, the clip doesn't truly identify the history of the song or the song itself, which foresaw versions and lyric alterations.

Marketers use samples in shopping websites... and (old days) music shops to drive customers into buying an album containing that content or a single. Have CD-ROM encyclopedias in the pre-Wikipedia era included samples of songs? If so, what was the amount of samples per encyclopedia? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is just keep asserting that it doesn't have contextual significance, using apparent "sarcasm" to dismiss my argument. If you argument is that it's the wrong section, that is an argument for moving to a different section, your argument is not a reason for deletion. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, the use in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section wouldn't do much either except song demonstration, which isn't all what "contextual significance" (or "significance") means. If that "significance" to the topic isn't "contextual", then that "significance" shouldn't be in the project.

The non-free file must demonstrate how text is inadequate without non-free content. As I see, the text is fine to understand and grasp without non-free content, implying that the old 20th-century song itself can be already understood without NFC. The sample doesn't do much except mere portion demonstration/identification and doesn't illustrate the song (or the branding of it), which has a long history before the version demonstrated by the sample. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. Hzh (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. When have I ever done that? I read your points and thought I was counterarguing them well, including your counterargument to Fastily's "delete" vote. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to the one I didn't literally counterargue yet (It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself), then here goes: I'm not trying to ignore (or argue against) WP:NFC#CS, which is the guideline's interpretation of the "contextual significance" criterion policy. I'm either interpreting the guideline this way or using WP:GUIDES to decide whether to either follow the guideline or stick with the policy (to override the guideline).

A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. If that were true in all cases, then other samples that were deleted via FFD wouldn't have been deleted at all. Check the past nominations on .mp3 and .ogg files yourself please. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all), I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". It is the most prominent version, therefore the most representative version of the song. You appear to have your own unique interpretation of the WP:NFC#CS, adding criteria that aren't there to argue for deletion. Since you have been found trying to delete this file using false information, this file would have already been deleted if I had not bother to challenge it (few would bother to check the validity of your information, and I only challenged it because I found what you did objectionable), I don't take previous deletions as examples of anything. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly accused me of spreading "false information", which is a sordid accusation, and implies intent. When has information been "false" and intentionally "false"? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"False information" by itself does not imply intent to deceive. Someone can use false information without knowing it is false. Don't think I have ever accused you of "spreading false information". "Disinformation" is the word for false information with intent. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that that the song was copyrighted was mentioned twice in the article - by Carter Stanley, and by Lee and Juanita Moore. It suggests that you did not read the article properly to say that it was free of copyright. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative is that you knowingly stated false information to get the file deleted. So which would you prefer, being careless with facts by not reading the article properly so you can delete a file, or that? Hzh (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all). When is a music sample required to identify the "prominent version"? I was trying to point out that "contextual significance" doesn't always mean illustrating what the song sounds like, but... ah, well. You always would counter-argue just to stand firm to your views, anyways.

I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". I will move the sample if the result is "keep"; I was trying to argue how pointless the moving would be if otherwise. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole I-mean-what-I-didn't-say argument is always an interesting one. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: provided it's not in breach of copyright, I can't think of a better way of "illustrating" any song to the reader (i.e. listener) than by providing a recording or an extract of that song. But given it's current placement in the article under "Origin", and the fact that a full recording of that version is linked to in the infobox for the Soggy Bottom Boys section, one might easily argue it's misplaced and/or redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]