File talk:TransAsia Flight 235 crash.png

Contested deletion

This file should not be speedy deleted as an obviously non-free file but which is not claimed by the uploader to be fair use, because... a NFUR has now been added.) --Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I don't understand why this would be nominated for speedy deletion. The image CLEARLY has fair use rationale given and the image is not from some Venezuelan (?) news website. It is from the source & author stated. If there is any question about the image's fair use or source, then the image should go through the regular deletion nomination. AHeneen (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Aheneen:, as I explained at the article talk page, the image needs both templates, not just one. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, let me fix that ping for you (do I have to do everything???) AHeneen ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Technically to meet NFC, you don't need a template beyond the licensing one, just sufficient text to meet the 10 NFC criteria. The template (either version) work to organize the thoughts towards NFC, but neither is a preferred form. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: - that's not how I understand the situation. One to allow use on wiki, one for use in specific article. Hopefully all concerns have now been addressed and we can get back to editing. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No: a licensing template is to identify the licensing/copyright details of the original image, and then for each use of the image, you need a separate rationale to explain all the details of NFC specific for each use. There is a template set that has one template that identifies common elements like size and source and owner, and a separate to discuss the rational, no free equivalent, etc., but that wasn't the case here. While it is all fixed now, be aware that the original template at the point of CSD seemed fine in terms of addressing the base NFC requirements (ignoring the issue of size and source that you're discussing below). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free reduce tag

WP:IMAGERES states: "At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail."

This image does not approach either limit. It is at 64% of the first and 31% of the second. The need for this size is as follows: The vehicle in the image is a significant part of the accident being depicted, it is mentioned in the article, and there is reader value in making it large enough to see. As you can see in the previous version, the vehicle is not discernible at a significantly smaller size. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen:@Mjroots: Looks like this rationale needs to be added somewhere, but I don't know where. And a template needs to be removed to prevent automatic resizing. Can one of you handle this pleez? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen:@Mjroots: At the risk of making a nuisance of myself, I'm repeating the pings. This image size is important for the reasons I've given, and I've known pings not to work even when I was careful to sign in the same edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - image is 640 x 480 px, which is 307k. At 31%, it is less than one-third the size of the original. As far as I see it, we either remove the template, or allow a bot to do a further resize. @193.113.135.68: have you got any comments to make? Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Unless I'm misreading the information at WP:IMAGERES, the current size is supported by guideline provided that "the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail". The problem is that the rationale isn't covered at all except for my comments in the upload, and only briefly there. So the appropriate action seems to be (1) get the rationale somewhere into the File page Summary section, and (2) delete the reduce template. If we did (2) without (1), what would prevent this from happening again? Is there some provision against "double jeopardy"? The problem is that I don't know the best way to do (1), so I'm looking for someone involved who has some experience in this area. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, I've expanded the description and removed the tag. @193.113.135.68:, if you don't accept our arguments, re-add the tag and we'll discuss further. If you have an image size in mind, please say so. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: I see you have re-added the reduce template. Could you comment on the above discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been on WP for a little over 24 hours. I think the current pixel size is ok. It could be reduced just a little and still show the taxi. It does fall within the WP:IMAGERES guidelines, though. AHeneen (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we're overzealous in general about reducing image sizes, and I certainly don't think this one is problematically large... but I can see the vehicle just fine at the size it's displayed in the article, which is currently just 260x195. —Cryptic 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I envy your eyesight. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

These file talk pages are blank 99% of the time--I didn't even think to look. I reverted my upload. -- Veggies (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots and Mandruss: IP was me at my work place, fine by me - WP:IMAGERES is a guideline for generaly being 100,000 pixels, but it's not a fixed policy - if there is enough rationale on the image why it's a bigger size, then there is no problem. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. All is right with the world. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Original image source

It's my understanding that this still came from a dashcam video. Is there any sources as to who the dashcam belonged to? If the video was uploaded to some social filesharing service by the dashcam owner, would there be any copyright implications? --Natural R_X 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you read all of the information under Summary on the File page? I believe that is all that is known about the image. I can't answer any copyright questions since I am clueless as to copyright. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The origin is explained in the Source parameter under Summary, with the best possible explanation. The video has been uploaded to YouTube, but I'm not certain what the original is (as opposed to copyright violations and news agencies which aren't copyvios but also not the original source). AHeneen (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is vexing but simple. We assume full non-free copyright unless we have affirmative and verifiable evidence to the contrary. Thus, when you find some random image and can find no information about it, you can't use it except as fair use (if it qualifies under our stringent standards).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)