Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 1 0 1
TfD 0 0 4 0 4
MfD 0 0 5 0 5
FfD 0 0 14 2 16
RfD 0 0 54 10 64
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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.

What not to list here

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. 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}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. 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}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 9}} 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 9}} 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 9}} 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.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • 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.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • 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.

Instructions for discussion participation

[edit]

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, not voting. 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.

Instructions for closing discussions

[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

[edit]

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

[edit]

File:Savoia-Marchetti S.66 take off.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EH101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication date, no way to confirm PD-US. — Ирука13 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a print, it was very likely published before 1978. Abzeronow (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Ambassador Al-Thani.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by QMission (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyvio: This is a copyright image of GCO Qatar and it is not clear if the user is associated with it. See → Copyright Policy. It should therefore not be moved to Commons at all, but should be deleted straight away. Btw. I apologize for the rework on the deletion request file, I wanted to do it right the first time. This is new for me in the English language Wikipedia איז「Ysa」 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Backboard shattering.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Left guide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural filing to seek wider community input to settle disagreement over the validity of speedy deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not an expert and barely know much about Basketball but if it's a rare occurrence and no free equivalent can be found then it should be kept. If the person who proposed this deletion or another person wants to find a picture of this that is free to use then they should do so and then replace the file but if it can't be replaced then that sort of speaks for itself.
This0k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was obvious... but I have to repeat what was said on the file's discussion page:
Anyone can buy their own object at any time and smash it with a rock wrapped in a basket-ball.
Anyone can order a less durable object and smash it with a regular ball.
Anyone can install a camera aimed at filming an ordinary shield – sooner or later it will be smashed.
There are thousands of such shields in the world, thousands of reporters with thousands of cameras watch the games.
Anyone can order or draw a highly realistic photo- or 3D image themselves.
All of the above will carry equal encyclopedic information content.
Here, there was not even an attempt at a more advanced search, there was no attempt to negotiate with photographers to change their license, there was no attempt to find or create an image using our Wikipedia community.
This photo does not correspond at all to the spirit or letter of WP:NFCC.
This is not an eruption of Vesuvius, not a dead person, or a person sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum-security prison. — Ирука13 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a response to my CSD post at File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg, so I'll repeat it here:

I think backboards are more or less shatterproof now, so I believe it requires skilled demolition techniques to recreate. As for 3D/AI images, I said "I'm not aware" of their use on WP, so feel free to provide past examples of NFCC being denied on those grounds (It just seems we'd rarely need NFCC then if we're content with "fake" image replacement).

Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also clearly important to the article regardless so should be kept if no free equivalent is found. This0k (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image currently placed also showcases what the topic of the article is very well and putting a 3D image would just look terrible. This0k (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, there was not even an attempt at a more advanced search: How did you determine that? At the file's NFCC#1 rationale, it says:

No similar free images could be found

It'd be a different case if the field was empty.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, anyone can buy the rights to one of these photos and relicense it as free. — Ирука13 10:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until that happens, none of the 10 points at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is being violated. —Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point one was violated when the image was loaded. — Ирука13 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll agree to disagree that a fake AI image is an "equivalent" or that purchasing an image and releasing it is "free". Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only you here speak without evidence about "fakes" and "artificial intelligence". I gave examples of the opposite. Examples that are widely used.
Sure. To take a free-licensed photo, you need to buy a camera. — Ирука13 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With respect to WP:NFCC#1, I will emphasize that [n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Simply put, it is possible to shatter a backboard still, and it is possible to photograph someone shattering a backboard. This clearly fails NFCC#1 and the analysis ends there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if an existing free image cannot be found (I don't get the impression a thorough search for one has been done – one unsuccessful basic search of Flickr certainly is not enough to claim a free image does not exist), it's certainly still possible to create a free image to illustrate the topic (an animation would suffice), so this fails NFCC#1. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an NBA backboard hasn't been broken since 1993 though I suppose it could still happen elsewhere. There are some images of broken glass on Commons but I don't think any of that will work here. I'm not sure throwing a rock at a pane of glass would have the same visual affect of a shattering backboard; backboards are broken by dunks, not by the ball hitting the backboard. So to replace this image, we would have to buy a non-NBA basketball hoop with glass and find someone who can dunk strong enough to shatter the backboard. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only NBA backboards will do, others won't? School ones have no encyclopedic significance anymore?
Wouldn't a drawing be suitable either? Why do we still illustrate articles with drawings?
And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it. For free. — Ирука13 19:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it: Whether or not this file qualifies, you either do not understand the premise of NFCC, or are just trolling, as you are already blocked on Commons for "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense".[1] Which one is it? —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you ignored the previous two lines.
Should I consider this question as WP:CIVIL?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iruka13 (talkcontribs) 07:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such an image can be created.

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
— WP:NFCC

— Ирука13 07:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader stated clearly that their effort was "searching "backboard shattering" on Flickr." That is nowhere near good enough to support the claim that a free image does not exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original question they were responding to was Please tell us how you searched for the image for this article? The question was not list everywhere they looked. —Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they had done more, they would have said so when asked specifically for clarification. In any case, the apparent lack of an adequate search for a non-free image (to support a claim that one does not exist) is only half of the story; given an original animation could be created that would suffice for encyclopedic illustration purposes, there can be no justification for using a non-free image. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they had done more, they would have said so when asked specifically for clarification.: I'd say AGF on their response, instead of assuming there's some nefarious deception or withholding of information. I don't have a stake in this image, nor am I an FFD regular, but am bothered by many bad rationales here and in the original CSD. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No-one here appears to be "assuming there's some nefarious deception or withholding of information". Anyway, we should assume they did what they said they did, rather than speculating (or wishing) that they may have done something else. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we should assume they did what they said they did, rather than speculating (or wishing) that they may have done something else: Likewise, stop with the "speculating (or wishing)" of what they did not do. If someone says they're dating their best friend's ex, it doesn't also mean that they never dated anyone else.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just stick to the information we have been given, which doesn't involve pretending something else was done. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we're really splitting hairs here on "could be created"... almost any image could be created, and the evidence seems to be that this image could not be reasonably recreated. There's a difference between the thing shattering during a game (real) and someone just throwing a rock at it (fake). Cremastra ‹ uc › 15:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in this photo you can see that the glass was broken by a dunk, not a rock? — Ирука13 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, pretty much any scene or logo or image could be recreated if you try hard enough. Cremastra ‹ uc › 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And throwing a rock at it would not illustrate a slam dunk with sufficient force to shatter the tempered glass of the backboard, often causing the hoop to break off as well. The image showing part of the game does. You can't just fake images. Cremastra ‹ uc › 16:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes i can
and yes i do
all the time — Ирука13 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Cremastra ‹ uc › 21:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guideline WP:NFCI reads (emphasis added):

    Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

    Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey so I was able to find (I guess) photos of a broken hoop or backboard that I'd recommend uploading to Commons and using if you decide. As I don't think this will get any consensus in the slightest but it's you to you. These are them 1 and 2 Both are under cc 2.0 generic, a license allowed on WP. I think that (clearly) the first picture is better and should be used but it's up to you unless these don't represent the topic which I think they do. There's also this one [3]. The issue is I don't really see how this conveys what is being said in the article, the backboard is broken but not as badly as when a backboard shatters This0k (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those look like damage from either vandalism or deterioration, not from the force of a person dunking a ball, which is the context of the article subject. —Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael Bednarek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

{{FoP-USonly}} can only be used for architecture, but this is a sculpture. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced {{FoP-USonly}} with NFURs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:01, 28 November 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]
    With all due respect, the image was deleted in Commons as lacking FOP in Iceland, i.e. FOP not given to buildings and artworks, unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedia Commons really just deletes FOP Icelandic and French photos because they are not allowed to keep no-commercial photos, due to foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy. They even admit to it on their own pages at c:COM:FOP Iceland. Snævar (talk) 18:37, 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.
I don't think that the picture is needed in Harpa (concert hall).
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]
Shoot! I didn't read further! —George Ho (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheInfoGiver827 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free: I think the original (04:12, 13 October 2024) upload does not meet the threshold of originality and should be restored and marked as such. The text on the webpage was very brief (see "words and short phrases" at :c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States § Threshold of originality) and the logos are already on Commons. A complicating issue is that the original file was repeatedly overwritten by more complex files, which may actually meet the threshold of originality. These overwrites should not have happened, as the original state of the webpage was the intent of the screenshot (described in the filename). I think the original upload should be restored and marked as free. This discussion was moved from deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 21 § File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png, pinging Aafi, Cryptic, Alalch E., Robert McClenon, Stifle, Jclemens, Hobit as involved in previous discussion). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Delete. Logo and composition of text are above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why else besides non-free logo and composition? And which of the logos are non-free, and how is the composition non-free? The Internet Archive logo is already in Commons. Also, the composition itself is too factual and unoriginal enough for copyright. George Ho (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to the state as of 13 October 2024 and move to Commons per nom. The logos are text logos and the text included in the original upload (shorter than the progressively longer text in later files) is not copyrightable. We could make this screenshot from the Wayback Machine right now and upload it to Commons, and it would not be deleted from the Commons. But moving is nicer because it's an original historical image.—Alalch E. 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons (some revisions only)  hard to fully judge without seeing other revisions. Nonetheless, as I see, the file itself contains logos and text unoriginal enough for copyright. Nothing artistic or creativity is used in text enough for copyright. The text work isn't a literary work either. Can't help wonder why the the file is perceived as non-free in the first place. —George Ho (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original uploader are probably unsure which license to use when uploading the photo. Nonetheless, from my perspective, the original file should be restored due to the file name. Because the uploader, put dates on the file which is "13th October". The restoration of the image and move it to Commons allows the image to also be used on Wayback Machine article. 2606:1A40:1035:0:211C:5C8:490F:E2BD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note/suggestion - If it was to be kept, it should be taken out the infobox and an appropriate caption listed which explains or uses a quote from critical commentary which relates to the portion of the song used. Additionally, the sample page needs a better description that n/a against the WP:NFCC criteria.
>> Lil-unique1 (talk)23:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Allensworth10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

On the one hand, the image has an unknown publication date; and the creation date is the 1910s. On the other hand, this photo is part of the work of the Californian government, which is PD... — Ирука13 17:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Antonbabich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The complex logo (?) is loaded over the simple one without changing the license. Not to mention that in the source it is now .svg. — Ирука13 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert file, revision delete, and re-upload as File:Chambéry Airport logo new.png. This file is presently used in Chambéry Airport, where it is appropriate as a logomark. However, we should not be overwriting older public domain files with new free files, as this can create unnecessary revision deletions and confuse people looking at old revisions. If we keep the histories separate (such as by the method I've suggested or by a straightforward histsplit, we could allow for the use of both the old logo and the new logo in an encyclopedic way. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The C of E (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946" — Ирука13 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD where? — Ирука13 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the second bulletpoint in the tag. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GiankM. M (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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. Launchballer 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phibetawiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think it's under the threshold of originality for maps, making it public-domain. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geniu~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука13 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jax MN (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dawnseeker2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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 - [2]. 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]
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]
  • Comment. I don't really see a good reason to use this at Man of Constant Sorrow, seeing as the song was first written in 1913 and thus the music itself is in the public domain; I don't see how WP:NFCC#1 could be met there provided that a recording of that music could be created and then released into the public domain. A similar logic won't carry over to the specific soundtrack on which the recording is featured. With respect to WP:NFCC#8 (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding), my understanding is that this song is actually really really important for how the movie score is written, and I do think that this audio clip would significantly increase reader understanding thereof. The one thing that holds me up is that the specific non-free content guidance for audio clips does allow for use when the recording is the subject of sourced commentary, and we don't really have that at O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), but frankly ample sourcing does exist to write it in and include it if somebody puts the effort into expanding the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rublamb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука13 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. The use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo which has not been found elsewhere for this defunct group. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the article is barely enough to use {{External media}}. Once again - what prevents you (not you specifically, but any person) from taking your own photo of this object? And again, why, despite MOS:LEAD / MOS:LEADIMAGE / MOS:SECTIONLOC, is the image placed in the infobox, and not in the section in which it is described?
Are you sure you tried? — Ирука13 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the link you provided for the org is from 2013 is that the Order went defunct in 2014. There is no longer a national office to call for a photo. But I think you are missing the point. The photo was taken by a federal employee in their capacity at the federal institution (the national museum). Copyright is, therefore, not an issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the reason.
The community is 100 years old. All of its members and their families are dead. All - all! - of the merchandise is destroyed or in Fort Knox. Am I right in understanding why you can't take a photo of it? — Ирука13 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't take a photo because I don't live in the country where the organization existed. But I don't have to because the photo is in public domain as a federal government product. Rublamb (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian federal employee? In Canada? — Ирука13 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Canada has a federal government. Although works released by the federal government fall under Crown Copyright, "recent changes allow non-commercial use of Federal Government Works without permission". More info can be found at this summary by Dalhousie University, a public university in Canada. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia's point of view, these are still not free images. — Ирука13 09:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am typically very cautious about copyright, having received training in this field as part of an MLIS. Per a recent discussion in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, it was confirmed that photographs taken by a federal employee in their capacity of work for the federal agency are allowable in Wikipedia, depending on the laws of each country. Although Canadian laws differ from those in the US, this usage falls under fair use without written authorization because Wikipedia is not commercial. If the same photo were from a US national museum, I would added it through WikiCommons but went the fair use route for this image because Canadian law limits usage to non-commercial, which is not consistent with WikiCommons policies. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you even mention it then? What about "the photo is in public domain as a federal government product"? — Ирука13 23:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13, would it mollify your concern here if we shift the usage to serve as the primary image in the infobox, to identify the group? These are now images that can be used in body text, which are discussed at some degree. We would prefer to include both a crest and a pin image, but haven't been able to find a crest in this case. The pin image is our fallback. Jax MN (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will not use non-free images anywhere, violating 2 licenses, if it is possible to violate only one or not violate at all. — Ирука13 07:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. You are incorrectly evaluating this photo using the standards of WP:NONFREE. Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia. However, it cannot be added to WikiCommons because it cannot be used for commercial uses without permission. Photos added to WikiCommons must be useable by anyone, with no restrictions. It may be uncommon to find a photo that falls under free content that does not meet the guidelines for WikiCommons but it does happen. This is one of those images--it does not need to meet WP:NONFREE because it is a free image. Rublamb (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia.
Where did you get this information? — Ирука13 09:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What info? Canadaian copyrights or Wikipedia policy? Rublamb (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
free license template that you are ready to put on this file — Ирука13 17:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the rationale stated by Rublamb. Responding to Iruka13's (Ирука's) point, I hope that someone visiting the museum would indeed take a clearer picture, but for now, this image will suffice. As to placement, the F&S Project prefers to use a society's crest as the organizational identifier in the top left infobox, but when this is unavailable or of significantly (~too) low resolution, we opt for images of the society's pin or key. If both are available, we then place the pin or key image against the parameter | member badge = [badge].PNG, also in the infobox, or as a thumbnail graphic in the Symbols section of the body text. Both items help identify the society and its members, and in all cases we opt for PD images where we can, or reduced-size fair use images which do not affect commercial viability. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The participant confirmed that it is possible to take a free photo. — Ирука13 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Indian Bank logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VNC200 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A low-quality fake (WP:HOAX) that is not capable of replacing the original image for encyclopedic purposes (WP:NFCC# 4, 5, 8). — Ирука13 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change your own file to proper SVG file, and upload it in the old file. It would be better. VNC200 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 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]

Comment: I inform the community of a conflict of interest regarding this image between me and the administrator Ymblanter. — Ирука13 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: I don't think that's a conflict of interest as the term is used on Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

[edit]

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

December 2

[edit]
File:The Gayooms in 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MAL MALDIVE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unknown date of publication, impossible to count 50 years. +WP:URAA — Ирука13 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infact it is very much possible that the picture is taken in 1970, and that's 54 years ago. That's because of the twins pictured (Dunya and Yumna born March 1970) are likely not even 1 years old when the picture was taken. From 2024, 50 years is 1974. If that is so and if the picture was taken in 1974 or after, the twins would be over 4 years old. I don't think any 4 year olds looks like 6-8 month old babies. Also a other fact that if it was taken in 1971, it's possible that there would be Gayoom's son in the picture, who was born in 1971. So it is very much possible to say the picture was taken in 1970. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Simpsonsride1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jroktwp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image contains copyrighted characters. It is not free. Given the metadata, it should be deleted; and a replacement taken from Commons. — Ирука13 20:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JFKRocket.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JRC1285 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does Freedom of Panorama apply here? I asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions at the section, "Is this a sculpture or a rocket on a stand?" Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batman superman.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Batman tas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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. — Ирука13 23:11, 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". — Ирука13 01:40, 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. BarntToust 17:57, 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. — Ирука13 16:01, 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]

Recent nominations

[edit]

December 3

[edit]
File:Intransitive Verbs Flow Chart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stephanie lepage (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, redundant to File:Intransitive Verbs Flow Chart.png on Commons. plicit 00:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no file at c:File:Intransitive Verbs Flow Chart.png, so I'm a bit unsure how this is redundant to that file. Is it on Commons under a different name? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to link File:Intransitive Verb Flow Chart.png. plicit 03:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:KonguFlag.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AruvaVettu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, bad jpg. Superseded by File:Flag of Kongunadu.svg on Commons. plicit 00:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MattKMusic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by M Tee Kay (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. plicit 05:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashraf Ali Thanvi in wheelchair.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by اُسید محمود (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is not clear where and when the photo was first published (the author is also unknown). It is not possible to determine the licensing status. — Ирука13 11:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:June Edmonds Grande Adage 2024.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mianvar1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image contradicts points 3a and 1 WP:NFCC, namely, it can be replaced with the text: "this image, only with muted colors and a flower-like vesica piscis on it". This is especially noticeable if do not ignore MOS:SECTIONLOC when placing images (Special:Permalink/1260990468). — Ирука13 17:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robin Roberts plaque.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Killervogel5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robin Roberts baseball plaque.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rogo di Primavalle.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FarSouthNavy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As long as there is no information about the publication of this image before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice, it cannot be considered free in the United States. — Ирука13 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

[edit]
File:Agnes Taubert.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Throughthemind (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Was originally F7 tagged because the source is Alamy. However, I think it's really likely that the Alamy photo is just a reproduction of a 2d work that's probably in the public domain by now, but can't track down its ultimate source. If someone with more sleuthing ability than me can pin this to the timeline, we might be able to keep it/export it to Commons. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: A crop of the same image can be found used here, but the work in question was published in 2023, which means it's still possible the image came from Alamy/FALKENSTEINFOTO. The same publication can be found here and the image can also be found being used at the very beginning of this this YouTube video. While I understand the concerns about c:COM:License laundering/copyfraud and don't have a problem per se with the image being further discussed here, I did try a reverse image search before tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 and only found the links mentioned above. Unless it can be clearly shown that this was previously published prior to it being uploaded to Alamy in December 2015, I don't think moving it to Commons would be a good idea because it could end up being deleted per c:COM:PCP. Even if this were to be treated as an anonymous work, it would still be eligible for copyright protection for copyright protection for the lesser of 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication if Alamy is considered to be the first publication of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susan Smith (SC convict).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cotton2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Person still alive. EF5 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is generally an exception for people who have life in prison, as the same reasons for dead people apply - they are completely inaccessible to the public so it is impossible for a free image to be taken. See Lucy Letby for example. So keep, I suppose (she does have a theoretical chance of parole but given how high profile this case was... doubtful. But maybe weak keep given that) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kesha - Delusional cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keshaanimalcannibalwarrior (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clone of Commons file Bremps... 17:46, 4 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.
File:Evernote iOS logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esebi95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free historical logo being used in a decorative manner in Evernote which fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Wcam (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 PHS fight.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jake Choke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Article this was uploaded for has been deleted. There is no longer a fair use rationale to retain it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

[edit]
File:1983 John (Jack) Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guillaume de la Mouette (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence of this being "own work". While I know that content is more important than the contributor, the uploader has a history of adding copyvios. EF5 15:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, only actually has two uploads, overzealous on my part. Couldn't find anything on the web. EF5 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bosnian Cultural Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PeppermintSA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader claims that this is his own photo. However, this photo was online long before it appeared on WP [3]. The image should be removed as a copyvio that violates point 1 WP:NFCC. — Ирука13 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Did you try get in touch with the uploader and ask them for proof it is their file? They claimed to have taken if far before that website. I don't know to delete it as the link is for Sarajevo Photography Festival, and they may have just been apart of it. I suggest getting in touch with them via talk page. This0k (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

[edit]
File:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample's contextual significance to the whole parent album and the TV programme questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon skimming through both articles, I don't see sourced commentary on this song in particular. An article about the song itself that also has sourced commentary might better make the case for keeping the clip, but none exists at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at The Computer Programme, the entire category there is focused primarily on this sample. Delete it at Computer World however. This0k (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cult - She Sells Sanctuary excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the whole parent album, whole song, and whole band questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance George Ho (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Within She Sells Sanctuary, there is a sourced commentary regarding the song from John Leland at Spin, which talks about the specific instrumentality (the drums driving the song, and the guitar being the key sound, etc.). I also do think that having the audio there substantially increases readers' understanding of the song, as it's kinda impossible to impart to readers knowledge on how the song sounds using words alone in the way that having a short audio clip does. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moheen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image has its own article - Tongue and lips logo - and should be removed from all others (WP:NFC#UUI:6). — Ирука13 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Rosenberg, with Odalisque in a Yellow Robe, 1937, by Henri Matisse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coldcreation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the image was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. It needs to be returned to its non-free state. — Ирука13 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to fair use Is the evidence not the fact he died in the 50's, and that's him in the photo so unless somehow it was taken after 1977(which is unlikely) then it's not public domain but I highly doubt it was. There of course is the probability it wasn't published in the US but once again, that's highly unlikely.

Edit: Okay so it's definitely not been published in the public domain in the US. This0k (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Jeb Stuart Magruder - NARA - 194667.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cybrchef (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file name corresponds to a different image, housed in the National Archives: see File:Portrait of Jeb Magruder - NARA - 194667.tif. The original source and authorship of this image is unclear and dubious: versions of it appear uncredited for instance at https://www.hullfuneralservice.com/obituary/Jeb-Magruder and https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/gazette/name/jeb-magruder-obituary?id=17145210. If Cybrchef (talk · contribs) is in fact the creator and/or legal copyright holder of this photograph, then credible evidence of permission should be forwarded to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) --Animalparty! (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the licensing should be changed to fair use. The person in question is deceased so keeping the photo under a wrong license has no point.
This0k (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use does not apply per WP:NFCC, because there are free equivalent photographs with credible public domain rationale at Commons:Category:Jeb Stuart Magruder. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Legoland Discovery Display of Kauffman Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paulmcdonald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Initially I marked this image for deletion as WP:NFCC:8. However, then I remembered that there are many free images of construction sets. And indeed, the image is just a building, which, according to c:COM:TOYS, is acceptable (and individual figures would pass for c:COM:DEMINIMIS (however, while searching, I even came across a good image of Lego-Harry-Potter, so I don't even know)). On the third hand, this composition was created by a third party and can be considered a "sculpture" - from the "for use" category back to the "for viewing" category..? — Ирука13 22:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – De minimis doesn't apply, unfortunately. The image is highly focused on the Lego construction of a baseball field/stadium, and I've yet to see the image treating such construction as trivial or something to pass by. The c:COM:TOYS is subjective at best; somehow, it doesn't explicitly address construction of Lego bricks. Rather it uses toy figures as examples, like toy airplanes. Well, plenty of photos displaying construction of Lego bricks and pieces have been deleted at Commons. As you stated, the image fails to be contextually significant to the entertainment center, meaning the omission of this file wouldn't affect such understanding in any way. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:KNSB IowaPublicRadio logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rudy2alan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this actually non-free? (If so, it would have to be removed and deleted as we generally don't allow decorative non-free former logos.) It appears to be the same basic logo as File:WOI IowaPublicRadio logo.png, which is on Commons and is asserted to be below the threshold of originality (or else it wouldn't be on Commons at all!). WCQuidditch 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:F5. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's the same logo. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk!📦Contributions) 08:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it below the threshold because it so then Delete This0k (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

[edit]
File:(Free Wikipedia upload version)-Ambulance at scene of the Countdown Massacre, Dunedin, May 2021.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aubernas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC8 & WP:NFCC1. Building still exists for a CC file to be produced. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 07:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this isn't the "scene" of incident but instead the exterior of where the attack took place. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 07:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Elgar Heath.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim riley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In the article for which the image was originally intended - and which has not been used for over 10 years - the event depicted in it is mentioned in one short sentence (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)). Also, illustrating anything other than covers with covers is not recommended WP:NFC#UUI.

In the second article, it performs the function of WP:LEADIMAGE, although it is mentioned.. in references! (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)) — Ирука13 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the second article, this image, previously used on an album cover, illustrates a particularly appropriate 1971 performance of the subject overture, the focus of which is London, because Edward Heath is a public figure who served as a Member of Parliament from Greater London, shown here conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. I have not seen another photo that would more helpfully illustrate the article. The image satisfies all the other criteria, and as to criterion #1, No free content has been found that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says none of this. — Ирука13 23:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in second article Cockaigne (In London Town), it illustrates exactly what is pictured and what the entire article is about. He is conducting the LSO in Cockaigne.
This0k (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:TEDxBirgunj2016.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hell walker guy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to TEDxBirgunj. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FlightGear Flight Sim Bo 105 over Sint Marteen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 14gadkagdkhak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is sourced to wiki.flightgear.org where it is listed as cc-by-sa-4.0. However, wiki.flightgear.org sources the file to the website imgur.com (http://i.imgur.com/ve0u4He.png), where there is no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I am 1000% positive those files were uploaded by the person in question article wiki.flight.gear.org. They uploaded many more from the same station. It is very common to upload your own files to imgur and if you click on the file you can tell it is a hidden file meaning they uploaded it as only the creators themselves have access to files or uploads that are hidden and share the link to others to give them access to it. Considering their profile it's highly likely their image. Personally I recommend going to the User who is still kind of active as they posted in October for evidence of the permission.
This0k (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Ligue 2 logos

[edit]
File:Stade Lavallois logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Minorax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Problematic logo, only includes text and geometric forms, same problem with :

File:FC Annecy logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RickyDean76 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:En Avant Guingamp logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iojhug (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that the logos are problematic? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said this because the logo only contains text, colour or geometric forms that are ineligible for copyright in the US, but I can get wrong. Otherwise, Paris FC, SC Bastia or SM Caen logos have the correct license. So, IMO, Annecy, Laval and Guingamp logos are ineligible for copyright. Thanks for informing me. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make the logos problematic.
    For simple shapes, see this document. The first page contains two versions of the Car Credit City logo. The first one was found by the United States Copyright Office to be PD-textlogo, while the second one was found to be copyrighted. These logos may be of similar complexity as the copyrighted Car Credit City logo, so they are maybe not PD-textlogo in the US. There are no examples of logos at c:COM:TOO France, so it is unclear if they are copyrighted in France or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay, thank you for informing me, I will be serious next time. But for now, I let the others decide. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Clàudia Pina Medina audio.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingsif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Google Translate says that the site content has a {{CC-BY-ND}} license. — Ирука13 17:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it very clearly doesn't. If you refer to the avis legal handily already linked at the file page, it says reuse is permitted for free and without permission as long as the reuse does not change the meaning or suggest it is officially endorsed by the parliament, and as long as there is attribution. That's attribution-only, and the same legal text that was used to create the Catalan government attribution template (Template:attribution-gencat on Commons). Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit.
"1. that its meaning is not altered or distorted."
No? — Ирука13 23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
meaning is the operative word. Again, this is the exact same legal text used in the longstanding Commons license specific to this organisation. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that Google Translate is lying (which for some reason you didn't refute(or maybe my English didn't let me understand it)). Let's assume that the texts are identical (one has "CC0", the other doesn't). Only the sites are different. The Commons template is not applicable in this case. — Ирука13 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You seem to acknowledge the legal text in both cases is the same but then suggest that it doesn’t apply? Just because you apparently don’t know the difference between changing something’s content and changing its meaning and now don’t want to drop it. If you’re admitting that you understand neither Catalan or English, I also don’t know why you’re so boldly insistent that your interpretation is correct when, once again, Wikimedia Commons has a whole thing for works created by the Catalan government. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please translate this sentence into English: "que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit". — Ирука13 17:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That does not alter or distort the meaning." Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But let's be clear, the translation is not the issue. Your ability to interpret it is, as I already highlighted that the important part is meaning and you just ignored me. The text doesn't refer to altering the content (ND) at all. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True.
I didn't read until the words Creative Commons. That's also true. I wouldn't even bring it up for discussion.
But what the person below said is true also. — Ирука13 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that the legal text doesn't specify an English Wikipedia-approved CC tag, then the real problem is that English Wikipedia doesn't have the Catalan government Commons license. And the solution is that the file should be moved to Commons so that it can be properly license tagged there.
The Catalan government has always been descriptive, not prescriptive, of its CC licenses with the Commons agreement being "CC0 with attribution" (something that isn't in the regular licenses, hence Wikimedia Commons has a separate template). Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have nothing against you moving this and similar files to Commons before the end of this discussion. Only there might be someone like me who will notice the difference in the site addresses and the difference in the text. And everything will repeat itself. — Ирука13 08:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says Aquestes limitacions es poden establir mitjançant l’ús de llicències Creative Commons. I assume that this means that the file is available under a Creative Commons licence, although it doesn't say which one. As most Creative Commons licences require you to refer to the licence in one way or another, it is not possible to use files under Creative Commons licences if the licence type and version number are unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:attribution-gencat on Commons would apply, given the publisher and having (for the final time) the same legal text as was used for that long before me. There was an mp3 issue on Commons at the time I uploaded it, or it would've gone there. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

[edit]
File:WKVAWiki.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tbone903 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I suspect this logo for radio station WKVA is not a CC-licensed "own work", despite what is claimed by the uploader. WCQuidditch 08:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to fair use. This image can be used on the article as it doesn't fail any NFCC's and is primary topic but I feel as though the rationale should be changed to fair use so if you agree then please let me know because I would do it. This0k
Update.

I moved the file to fair use. My apologies if you think I should have waited for consensus but that user is inactive and the logo being used under cc.4.0 is a HUGE violation of the fair use policy. I think we can close this discussion now. I also do think it should continue to be used on WKVA despite being fair use as it is minimal usage and also the main subject.(talk) 14:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soviet Colonel M. P. Seryugin and subordinate officers at Gostishchevo, July 13 1943.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука13 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macchi C.202 rear view.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EH101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that photo was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука13 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The voice of Ryan Wesley Routh, the alleged attempted assassin of Donald Trump, 2022.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CMBGAMER 2018 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used as part of the infobox for someone with criminal charges. This sample was discussed at WT:NFC one month ago in regards to being "irreplaceable" and contextually significant to the article subject. Its clip length is also discussed. One voiced that this sample overall may fail to comply with NFCC. The most concerning would be the sample's irreplaceability and contextual significance. The clip length would be easily remedied but to what extent? Hearing the sample from 2022, he's a journalist for Newsweek Romania reporting humility of Ukrainian soldiers during the War, and the content itself would be easily summarized into brief descriptions if the article would allow the text reiterating that. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

[edit]
File:Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think it's important to illustrate the character's appearance in third party material, and this particularly drives that point, but I can get it across with other material (for example her in-game custcene introduction)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gardevoir-pornography.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this image is necessary to illustrate the article. The reader can comprehend perfectly well that this character is sometimes depicted in NSFW ways without seeing one of them visually. This is not an official image of the character and is essentially one person's (copyrighted) fantasy. This specific image is not the subject of any commentary. No valid non-free use rationale. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ganesha811: I feel in contrast to the Purah matter, this one does illustrate an important aspect of how people are sexualizing this character by imprinting human traits on the character, which is something also discussed on the article in question but also in some of the sources on the Pokemon and pornography article. I do think on those grounds there could be some basis to warrant an image illustrating that contrast between the actual design and what's here, though this particular image's usage is unsure of: I had originally sourced it from Destructoid, a gaming journalism website.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but we'll see what others think! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:National Park 181.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard79 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, edited with silliness. No encyclopedic use. plicit 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Today is December 9 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 9 – (new nomination)

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 9===" 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.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.