< September 12 September 14 >

September 13

File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg

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: relisted on 2019 October 13. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
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:Barrackpore tci.JPG

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrackpore tci.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is a collage without specific information about the source for the constituent images. A vague wave to wikimedia.com is not a proper source and mediapo.in does not even resolve for me. Whpq (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2019 (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:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png

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. See my closing rationale below. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dnd v3 5 rulesbooks.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RJHall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The book covers are not used as the primary means of visual identification and are not the subject of sourced critical commentary in Dungeons & Dragons or Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. (recent discussion) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, see my comment below. These should be bundled. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (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:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

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: remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. See my closing rationale below. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Frecklefoot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, comments below. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (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:D&d original.jpg

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: remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. As pointed out by Marchjuly, the stringent NFCC policy allows cover art to be used in the article about the work in question, which is a de facto satisfaction of WP:NFCC#8. Usage beyond that does not automatically meet the aforementioned criterion and require a stronger justification per WP:NFC#CS, which is clarified by WP:NFC##cite_note-3: NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. [...] The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles... in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article.. These covers are not specifically discussed in a manner which comply with policy, nor did the keep arguments present any policy-based case which justify the additional uses of these covers. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:D&d original.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gracefool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure gold. First it was #8, then it's #1, now it's a footnote we're arguing about. You can keep moving the goalposts and cite numbers all day long, but you also need to interpret them and relay what parts they're not meeting. I see the footnote says "usually" and in reference to musicians and authors, it sounds like exceptions may apply. And as far as I can tell, the photos meets the footnote requirements as well, though you would have to explicitly show how they're not. Purely citing policy won't get you anywhere - it doesn't demonstrate you understand the policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFCCE, the burden is upon the person wanting to use a non-free file in a certain way to provide a valid non-free use rationale for it's use, and providing such a valid rationale involves more than simply adding text or a template to the file's page per WP:JUSTONE. The concerns raised by JJMC89 are legitimate and this type of non-free use has not really been allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 over the years absent any sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself. If you feel this use is an exception to that, then perhaps you can better clarify how. How is the reader's understanding of the content of the section about the book in the edition significantly improved by seeing this particular cover and how is omitting that cover image detrimental to that understanding? The file is being used for primary identification in Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set which seems OK. There's nothing in the WP:NFCC which says that a non-free file can only be used once, but additional uses tend to be harder to justify per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 and some kind of alternative way of presenting the content per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI should be used instead (even if this means not showing the image) whenever possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: You raise valid points. I'm aware of the burden, however in JJMC89's reasoning for deletion, they haven't adequately explained their case, to say the least. Do I feel they have a case? Yes I do. But I didn't learn it from the defense of their nominations, I got it from your comments. I still feel they may not understand it themself based on their unclear and poorly worded reasoning. Anyway, I see your reasoning, and perhaps it is an excessive use of images under our policy. Especially since I am reperceiving "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons" from your description of it as a list. You may be on to something there. However, I think the only thing I dislike about all of this, is that there were no notices on those articles that the imagery would be deleted. I think that could have been handled better. I know the file uploader gets a notice, but what about the article that uses them? A courtesy notice would have been nice. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is template ((ffdc)) which can be added to the captions of files nominated for discussion, but it's not required. To be fair though, many times a file doesn't have a caption so it can be confusing on where or how to use such a template. For reference, I tend to use "ffdc" templates whenever possible, but on more than one occasion these have been removed by other editors who didn't like the appearance of the template in the image's caption or wanted the file kept; so, even this doesn't guarantee anything. As for a more general notification about a file being nominated, some files have WikiProject banners added to their talk pages and, like an article nominated at AFD, a file nominated at FFD is usually added somewhere to a list on the WikiProject's page where pages under its scope which are flagged for problem can be found. Not all WikiProjects, however, have set up their pages to receive such notifications just like many WikiProjects don't have delsort templates; so, I guess it depends upon the project. Even that, however, is no guarantee since not everyone editing an article belongs to the relevant WikiProjects. Unlike with files being nominated for deletion from Commons, there's no automated way of adding an FFD notification to an article's talk page and I don't think there ever has been. Perhaps this would be something worth discussing at Talk:FFD, but at the same time AFD notifications aren't added to the pages of files used in articles which are being discussed at AFD; so, maybe this additional notification was once tried, but deemed to be not necessary. The surest way to be "warned" about anything such as this is to add the file to your watchlist and try and keep track of it that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your measured responses. I will begin watching file pages per your recommendation. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a disingenuous argument. The article is Editions of D&D (plural), of which all the pictures you nominated are exactly editions of D&D - one picture per edition. Exactly how are they not the subject of the article titled "Editions of Dungeons & Dragons"? I think what you want to argue is that an article should only have 1 primary picture to help the reader with the article, but since the article title is literally describing a plurality, one picture will not suffice, unless you do a spread of all the books in one shot and is likely unfeasible. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2019 (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:D&d Box1st.jpg

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: remove from Dungeons & Dragons and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. See my closing rationale above. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:D&d Box1st.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gracefool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Dungeons & Dragons and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons per WP:NFCC#8. The book cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. (recent discussion) — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at D&d original.jpg. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise see above. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2019 (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:Barrackpore tci2.JPG

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrackpore tci2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dibyojyoti RC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Collage with no information on source images. This image uses the same base files as File:Barrackpore tci.JPG but with additional images. The other file makes a vague statement of where the files came from. This file doesn't even bother with the vague statement. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13#File:Barrackpore tci.JPG. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (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.
More