Wikipedia:Files For Discussion
What not to list here
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
- {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
- {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
- {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
- {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
- {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
- Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
- {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
- {{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.)
- For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
- 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}}.
- Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
- Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
- Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
- Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
- 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}}.
- Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
- 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.
- 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 |
---|---|
2 | Create its FfD subsection.
Follow this edit link and list the file using 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 |
3 | Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using
If the image is in use, also consider adding |
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.
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
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:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
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
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
- File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a German image from 1905, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What basis do you have to believe this image was published anonymously? The first page in the source seems to imply that Weyer produced them, and it clearly states that he retained all rights. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- First, you did not mark the correct author of the file when uploading it, but thought that the file was uncertain. In addition, since the image was published in Germany, German copyright law stipulates that works enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense; I said the page implies that Weyer drew the sketches, but it's not clear.
- Yes, indeed; when did Weyer die? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- So is the issue just one of which template to use? So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer drew the sketch (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany). Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:SMS Niobe in harbor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a German image from 1902, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What basis do you have to believe that this was published anonymously? The fact that you don't know now who took the photo does not mean that it was published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer took the photo (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany); or is there an actual attribution to another named photographer? Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any indication this image is by Weyer; however, it should certainly be covered by {{PD-old-assumed}}, meaning it could be transferred to Commons in any case. Felix QW (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:6NEWS HD LOGO.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sethkeever (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. However, this particular logo may or may not meet the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
August 16
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Team USA ceremony uniforms at the 2024 Summer Olympics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevencocoboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I would say that a free equivalent can be produced (NFCC1) and is there a need to have a fair use file when there is an external link to show the similar subject? --Min☠︎rax 00:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2020 GFL win.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnthonyNVLe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file was created for someone's personal alternate history project. The uploader also uploaded several similar files: File:2004 Wellstone win (alt history).svg, File:1998 Alternate GFL win (ME).svg, File:2016 Huntsman re-election win.svg, File:Huntsman Unity GOP and DEM win.svg, File:Green-Farmer-Labor Party election symbol.png, File:Green-Farmer-Labor Party Logo.png, File:2008 Nader Alternate Win.svg, File:2004 Nader Alternate election win.svg, File:GFL Brown Alternate Re-election 2000.svg and File:Tulsi win 2020.svg. ―Susmuffin 05:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Galaxy nexus logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robber93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This logo is most likely in the public domain in the United States because the design is too simple to be protected by copyright, but it is likely to be protected by copyright in the PRC, the country of origin. It is recommended to replace the original fair use mark with template {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:John Sebastian-Welcome-1976.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SusanLesch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Use of sample in TV series article and the singer-songwriter one most likely not compliant with 'contextual significance' criterion. Song successful, but uncertain whether a sample is necessary for contextual significance, especially in the theme song one. Contextual significance ≠ portion/song identity. George Ho (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am not attached to this file, but I doubt that the tone of the TV show can be expressed without this theme song. I believe the sample meets the requirements 1, 2, 3: No free equivalent, Respect for commercial opportunities, Minimal usage. I don't think we have a way to include video so the theme is minimally prototypical of the show. I support removing it from any other uses including John Sebastian. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sample removed from the singer-songwriter article just now. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations
August 17
- File:Principality of Wy flag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Finnusertop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, unused. An SVG file based on this image has been posted to Wikimedia Commons (See commons:File:Flag of the Principality of Wy.svg). Sangjinhwa (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Principality of Wy Seal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Purpleorb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, unused. Sangjinhwa (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
August 18
- File:Gaymarchwash.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lionelt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The file is the DVD cover of The Gay Agenda: The March On Washington, a homophobic video series that was used in the article gay agenda. While the video series is the concept's origin, the DVD cover is only an illustration that is well described by the article's text. Neither the article is about the DVD itself, so {{Non-free video cover}} does not apply as well. WP:NFCC#8 is therefore likely to be violated, and the file should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Cottrell2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lionelt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The file is a music cover art of Louis Cottrell Jr., in which it is only used as an illustration in the article. Its omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Moreover, the article has been accompanied by fair use file File:You don't love me3.ogg and free file c:File:Louis Cottrell - ONWARD BRASS BAND - Leader-Clarinetist.jpg. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete Based on the fair use rationale, it seems like this image was intended for the Louis Cottrell Jr. § New Orleans: The Living Legends section. The discussion of the "creation of the album cover" didn't make it in. The albums all use this cover format so it'd have some value in identifying the series, but looking at the subject matter and the depth of the section, I just don't think this meets WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GreekParadise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 4. エルコボラ (話す) 07:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Criterion 4 says "A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." The area shown on the map is a part of the Golan Heights whose sovereignty is disputed between Lebanon and Israel. This controversy is described in the article and maps are a major part of the controversy. Also, this is only a very small part of the source map. So I fall on the side of allowing it. Zero 11:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a free version available on Commons? エルコボラ (話す) 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Because of the date (1966), I don't think a free version is possible without a license from the author (a mapping agency of the Lebanese government). Zero 13:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was done by a branch of a government that ceased to exist more than fifty years ago.GreekParadise (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The copyright of government publications is held by the government itself, including successor governments, not by individual departments. At least, that is how it works in most countries but I can't swear it is like that in Lebanon. So in this case we would need a license from the branch of the Lebanese government empowered to grant such licenses. Zero 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was done by a branch of a government that ceased to exist more than fifty years ago.GreekParadise (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Because of the date (1966), I don't think a free version is possible without a license from the author (a mapping agency of the Lebanese government). Zero 13:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a free version available on Commons? エルコボラ (話す) 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
August 19
- File:Zhou Jiangyong pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:FAIRUSE for living person image. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale directly addresses why this image of a living person would not be replaceable, and the nomination hasn't really addressed it at all. hinnk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 20
- File:DCUnitedOld.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuzzy510 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Former logos do not signicantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Also violates WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items, as the current logo suffices. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:D.C. United logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CouvGeek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Former logos do not signicantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Also violates WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items, as the current logo suffices. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's only a valid image for English Wikipedia if it meets all of the NFCC. Which it doesn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Steve Boros and His Apple II.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cbl62 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file should be considered for deletion now that a free image, File:Steve Boros Oakland.jpg, is available to identify Steve Boros. I understand this image is specific to his use of the Apple II and I'll ask the masses whether that's sufficient to retain it. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Steve Boros was the first manager in Major League Baseball (perhaps all of sports?) to use a computer to guide his staffing and game decisions. Computers are now an essential element of baseball (and sports) analysis. Boros' early use of computers is uniquely important, and this historic image depicts Boros with the early Apple computer that he used. The image provides an enriching historical element to the section of his biography on the use of computers. See Steve Boros#Computer pioneer. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NFCC#1 since a free image exists. An image of him with the computer also doesn't significantly enhance the article despite the sourced commentary about this phase of his life, so fails WP:NFCC#8 too in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. There's nothing visually distinctive about this computer, so this doesn't really add much that wouldn't be understood from the text alone. hinnk (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
August 21
- File:SpySheriffPopUp.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thisismyrofl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We typically don't need to use non-free images to illustrate general concepts. I suggest removal from scareware. There are some examples from [1] that are below the threshold of originality. Furthermore, the SpySheriff article already has a different non-free image, so there is no need to keep this one on that article either. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Bodwin-family.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bbodwin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The file is redundant and unfeatured in any article. Please notify if you are working on an article using this file. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1969.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1971.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1989.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1990.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Contrary to the claim that says that the logos are "discussed in articles as listed on this page", these former crests are not subject to sourced critical commentary in History of Swindon Town F.C., where they are used. In order to satisfy the contextual significance criterion, an additional non-free item must either "itself [be] the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "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", as "only a single item of non-free content meets" WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, "The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." None of these requirements occur in the aforementioned article. ✗plicit 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are discussed in Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest as stated on the image pages. If you feel they shouldn't be in the History article, feel free to remove them from it. Nanonic (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all fail WP:NFCC#8 as do not significantly enhance the articles (even with the paragraphs of partially sourced text about club logo history on Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest), and WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items in an article (current logo suffices on Swindon_Town_F.C., and no logo is fine on History of Swindon Town F.C.). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are just including old logos with zero commentary about them, those flay out fail NFCC#8. Our non free policy is stricter than fair use that other websites go by as to minimize the decorative use of nonfree — Masem (t) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I said - improve the articles. That is not a valid reason to delete. GiantSnowman 18:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are just including old logos with zero commentary about them, those flay out fail NFCC#8. Our non free policy is stricter than fair use that other websites go by as to minimize the decorative use of nonfree — Masem (t) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Deadlock-screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SilviaASH (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#4. The screenshot was taken from leaked closed-beta copy of yet-unannounced video game, and thus is not yet published by the copyright holder, Valve, to the public, nor publicly-released screenshot taken by Valve themselves are available. In a screenshot in the linked source, Valve made it clear not to leak it to the public. Therefore it cannot be considered as fair use. Stylez995 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The screenshot was published by The Verge, which is considered a reliable source of information. Although Valve did not expressly permit the publication of the screenshot, they did become aware of its publication after the fact, as evidenced by their banning of the article's author from playing the game [2]. If they wanted it gone, they could have filed a copyright claim to get it taken down, but they did not do so, and I think this can be taken as indication that they do not intend to prevent its spread. They have also so far not sought to exercise any legal force or mandate any enforceable agreements to prevent people from leaking the game, and there is no indication that they will do so, in spite of the extremely public nature of the leaks.
Considering the unusual circumstances at play here, I believe that informing readers about what is publicly known about the game in reliable sources takes precedence over pleasing Valve, and that WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:IAR apply in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Screenshot from video games and other medias do not have to be those released by the copyright owner, since the use of these fall under fair use principles of US law, as long as all other factors of non free are met. As for an unreleased to the public product, User-made screenshot are of questionable dubiousness, but those taken from reliable sources used to illustrate their own articles on the topic are 100% fair game for use, since we are using the source reliability to say the screenshot is a fair representation of the game. Masem (t) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Valve's secrecy agreement was a "gentleman's agreement" and AFAIK not even legally binding, so there's no case here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Images of Valencia City.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renzoy16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sources of the component images of this collage/montage not specified. Specifying the sources of the component images is important to ensure that this file as a derivative work of the component images does not contain unfree images not under acceptable CC licensing; see also c:COM:Collages. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Metro-epektaseis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfera1022 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
August 22
- File:Qarabag,logo,2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ulvi Rustam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Doesn't seem to increase reader's knowledge and can be redirected to Qarabağ FK instead. Fails NFCC8 --Min☠︎rax 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2004.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Campli, Italia (smaller).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Krzellitti (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Really scaled version of original File:Campli, Italia.jpg Lewis Cawte (Talk) 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:CapeRomanoPyramid.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SavagePanda845 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't think this non-free image qualifies for fair use as the parent article Cape Romano doesn't seem to contain any commentary about this specific structure. If we want to illustrate human presence, then File:Slipping into the Sea (25278613801).jpg could be used instead. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image does not convey anything essential about Cape Romano. I agree that the non-free image does not qualify for fair use in the article. Donald Albury 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I added the image, it originally accompanied a bit of info I wrote about the pyramid house, however, some of the sources I used weren’t reliable and it got reverted; I haven’t gotten around to readding it with better sources. If I did, would the image be able to stay? SavagePanda845 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
August 23
- File:Poster ponyo us.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 5e19be348138482c04e5d6b35a97e27bf0d2298b546d5197d65d3d71c49cbf15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This poster is redundant to the Japanese poster currently in the infobox of the Ponyo article. Use of more than one non-free file serving the same purpose violates criterion 3a of the non-free content policy. Delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anetode (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This probably meets the UK threshold of originality, but the design seems simple enough that it could be used as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. hinnk (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Footer
Today is August 23 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 23 – (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 "===August 23===" 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.