File talk:SansapleadsforNed.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image.

Rationale

From the Disputed Fair Use Rationale template: "While I've no doubt that the scene/storyline is significant, it's unclear why we need a non-free image in order to understand it. There's no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots in episode articles in the way, for example, it's generally assumed that a single non-free album cover is useful in the article about the album."

It sounds like you have a problem with every single episode screenshot of any copyrighted media program, television or otherwise, throughout Wikipedia, rather than a specific problem with this particular screenshot. In fact, adding this wasn't my idea, but was requested by the GA reviewer at Talk:The Pointy End/GA1. If there's a particular concern that THIS fair use image is somehow deficient compared to all other fair use images, then by all means please brign that issue up. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear before, I believe the template is clearly not applicable. The image denotes the scene referenced in the associated Wikipedia article, which currently reads: 'According to Elio Garcia from westeros.org, "Sophie Turner really shines in her scenes. There are a lot of people out there who judge Sansa very harshly, but you would have to have a heart of stone not to sympathize with her plight in this episode." Many reviewers agreed with this sentiment, commenting on the transition from a "spoiled brat" to a young, confused, but courageous teenager were noted by several reviewers positively.' (references trimmed, but present in article). That is, to the best of my understanding of Wikipedia fair use policy, the way the screenshot is used in the article is absolutely compliant with fair use policies and the rationale above isn't correct. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply coped from User talk:Jclemens. Yes, there are a lot of images which are inappropriate; it should be solved Wikipedia-wide, and part of that is doing it piecemeal- I sadly don't have access to a "delete all inappropriate non-free images" button. You're more than welcome to help. And no, there's no need for a RfC. This has been discussed countless times. Take a look at this, this and this, for instance. The take-home message is this: there's no automatic entitlement to non-free screenshots in episode articles. If a screenshot shows something that has to be seen (and I stress seen: not just an important scene, or a scene discussed in the article, or a scene that critics liked, but something that has to be seen to be understood) then it could be a useful addition, but the vast majority of articles are not going to need something like this. Good examples would be unusual filming styles, complex or subtle imagery, striking use of colour, etc. It's possible that I've misjudged this particular image and that this is the exception. However, to my eyes, it just looks like a picture of the character, of the kind often used (inappropriately) to say "this was an episode about this character", and the fact that you say "if the image is inappropriate under fair use, then a thousand or more other episode screenshot images are also" doesn't fill me with confidence. Screenshots cannot be justified under a "lots of other articles have screenshots" type rationale- they should be judged on their own merits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss the same things here I do at my talk page--here, I intentionally limit my comments to the file in question and the associated article in which it is used. My contention here is that nothing in the associated image or its use in the associated episode article violates any criteria--that is, each inclusion criteria is unambiguously met, and no exclusion criteria is met--enumerated in WP:NFCC, especially #8, as well as WP:NFC and WP:IUP. My justification for critical commentary on the image is in my prior post on this page, and nothing in the immediately prior response changes my view. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove the speedy deletion tag and take this to an appropriate, discussion-based deletion process, but I am prohibited from doing so as the articles "creator". Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not "unambiguously" meet the inclusion criteria. As far as I can see, it fails NFCC#8. You've cited commentary on the character and the scene, but I remain unconvinced that we need to see a picture of the character's face to understand these things. I can understand what happened in the scene and what happened in terms of the character's development without seeing this screenshot. If the administrator who comes to "close" this deletion is not satisfied that it fails NFCC, I will nominate it at FFD. Until then, I don't really see the value. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing NFCC #8 in a way supportive to your position, specifically by using the word "need"--The image does not need to be anything: it simply has to be helpful to understanding by its inclusion, and understanding harmed by its absence, which is a much lower standard than what you're saying--that NFCC #8 is met only if one cannot understand the text without the image. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not mischaracterising NFCC#8 at all, though my phrasing probably wasn't ideal. Your claim that an image simply has to be "helpful to understanding by its inclusion" is a very low bar. The NFCC specifically require that the image significantly improve reader understanding, in addition to its exclusion being detrimental. Does knowing what this character's face looked like in this scene significantly increase reader understanding of the episode? I do not believe so. Would reader understanding of the episode be detrimentally effected if they did not have a picture of this character's face during this scene? Again, I sincerely do not believe so. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So, editors in good standing differ on a point of interpretation, yet you decline to terminate the speedy process and send the file to a discussion based process now. Very well, I'll see if I can find someone else willing to do so. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say about process. If you have anything further to say about the image, I'm happy to talk, but, otherwise, I am disengaging at this time. I will respect the judgement of the administrator who takes a look at this image- if (s)he believes that the image fails the NFCC, it will be deleted; if (s)he does not, or believe that further discussion would be useful for whatever reason, it won't be- then it can go to FFD. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You conveniently assume that whichever administrator comes along will actually read the page instead of summarily deleting it without even reading this page, and deleting all this discussion right along with it. I'm going to ask a few to take a look at it, if I can't find someone else to remove the speedy tag outright. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All I'm assuming is that an administrator will follow the procedure- that thing you're keen to tell me I don't understand. I suppose an administrator could ignore this discussion, but, then, they could just as easily ignore a FFD. You're once again displaying your ignorance of how the image deletion processes work- image talk pages, unlike article talk pages, are not deleted when they contain deletion discussions, and, as noted on deletion notice, administrators are obliged to review the talk page discussion before making a decision about deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(to the above, chronologically after the reply below) I know how deletion process works in general, and I know how over worked administrators are (meaning that the chances of someone just deleting the image without looking at the talk page is nonzero), and I know that as soon as the image page is deleted, this talk page would be eligible for deletion under CSD G8, and back when I had the tools that would be the next option presented to any administrator deleting the image file. I fully admit that I'm not conversant in the peculiarities of the F7 image deletion process, never having touched the area myself, but the process you're describing is distinctly at odds with WP:CSD's general principles. Regardless of AGF, I still cannot see any good reason for leaving a contested speedy (except for G10-12 and a few other uber-speedy criteria) within a speedy process, when another editor clearly has contested the rationale, even if I am the original uploader. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you're straightforwardly wrong here. G8 specifically and explicitly excludes "in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere". And once again, this is not a "speedy process" in the usual sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you've got admin tools and I do not, how many deleted files are there in the File talk: namespace? And how many File talk: pages still exist without a corresponding File: file? I'm certainly willing to be wrong... but again, in years of having the tools, I've seen talk pages with important dialogue deleted G8 many, many times.

If this is NOT a speedy process in the usual sense, do I have your permission to remove the CSD-F7 tag, with no more recriminations than you proceeding to nominate the file for FFD? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how to check those stats, but if you explain it to me, I will. I don't know what it'll prove, though. I am still unclear on why you are so motivated to remove the deletion notice- you seem to be worried that an administrator will first delete the image without taking into account this discussion (which would be an out of procedure deletion) and then they or another admin will delete this page under a speedy deletion criteria which does not apply. It's possible, but if we're really so worried about administrators failing to follow procedure, I am not clear why you have such faith in a different procedure. This discussion has input from three editors- this is more than most files at FFD. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Many television episodes have lost their images, particularly where the image seems to be a random shot from the show that doesn't tell us anything that can't be described using words alone (thus failing NFCC #1). Over half the Star Trek (original series) have lost their images. There's 574 Simpsons episodes, and only 127 images.

I think this particular image fails to substantially increase our understanding of the subject of the article, and therefore fails NFCC #8. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I agree. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.