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:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not a good image of the Philippine Arena, obscured by trees. Poor representation of the arena. The only instance of use, at Bulacan article, will be replaced by File:Philippine Arena - Front View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg shortly after this nomination. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The suggested replacement is fine, but not a whole image of the stadium. I understand that English Wikipedia is not a file repository, but given that the original is deleted from Commons, having a limited selection of images of {{FoP-USonly}} buildings provides a source for future editorial choice. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
- File:Ph-bulacan-bocaue-philippine arena front.jpeg
- File:Philippine Arena - side view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front (Bocaue, Bulacan; 05-05-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - night view, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - Distant View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg (this is closer to the file I nominated)
- With seven images of this stadium, plus the image I suggested, it is already more than enough to illustrate enwiki. Enwiki is not an indefinite file hosting service, notwithstanding the local exemption doctrine (WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE). I think these images are enough and there is no need for more images of this stadium (unless the stadium's appearance is altered sometime in the future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The nominated image does a good job of capturing the juxtaposition of stadium and surrounding ecology. None of the images you cite do that. I will add that your note saying WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE is misleading, as WP:NOTFILESTORAGE explicitly allows files which could be used in articles. I don't think we're maxed out on potential usage when talking about the world's largest indoor arena. Nine images are not that many, and many of the ones you cite are much more similar to one another than the nominated image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle the boilerplate notice on top of WP:FOP explicitly states it is not a policy, so it is still inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting." It should first be made as a policy for it to complement with WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of the difference between a policy and an information page. Thank you. I am saying that the policy page explicitly endorses unused but potentially usable images like this. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle the boilerplate notice on top of WP:FOP explicitly states it is not a policy, so it is still inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting." It should first be made as a policy for it to complement with WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The nominated image does a good job of capturing the juxtaposition of stadium and surrounding ecology. None of the images you cite do that. I will add that your note saying WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE is misleading, as WP:NOTFILESTORAGE explicitly allows files which could be used in articles. I don't think we're maxed out on potential usage when talking about the world's largest indoor arena. Nine images are not that many, and many of the ones you cite are much more similar to one another than the nominated image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
- 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)
- Nom's comment – Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you oppose deletion then? Normally, nominated files without at least one input still have been deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I'm still uncertain whether the map belongs to the officials. I'm just now defaulting to treating the file as unfree at this time and can assume that the map fails NFCC technically. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (Unstruck, 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC))
- Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [1] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Changing my stance to more likely PD as Greek government work per above evidence. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Nom's comment, 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)- @Thryduulf and George Ho: Which license exactly? {{PD-GreekGov}} only applies to texts. ✗plicit 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [1] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Crap, I misread the tag. Reading c:COM:NOP Greece and the rest of the page, I couldn't find a suitable Commons tag that would label the map as free. Rather I now go for unfree by default again. Uncertain whether it meets NFCC, but the infobox has hidden/collapsed the map, which may affect the map's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Explicit: To me it looks like it does apply here. "[T]here is no copyright protection for official texts [...] nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." Emphasis mine. ~ Argenti Aertheri 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The maps are more than just "simple facts and data". Maps require high intuition and skill, especially to perfect proximity and whatevs. As I see, the map looks very complex expressively, even if it's not artwork or... How do you call it? George Ho (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, now I'm not sure. Near as I can tell the copyright holder is the government, but unless someone who can read Greek comes along, dropping the relevant law here is all I've got: Η προστασία του παρόντος νόμου δεν εκτείνεται σε επίσημα κείμενα με τα οποία εκφράζεται η άσκηση πολιτειακής αρμοδιότητας και ιδίως σε νομοθετικά, διοικητικά ή δικαστικά κείμενα, καθώς και στις εκφράσεις της λαϊκής παράδοσης, στις ειδήσεις και στα απλά γεγονότα ή στοιχεία. Unless a Greek speaker comes along to say otherwise I'm going to have to agree with you. ~ Argenti Aertheri 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- IMO it depends whether what Google is translating as "texts" is being used to mean "works" or specifically "textual works", both seem equally plausible - especially as Google offers an alternative translation as "official documents". Commons:Category:PD Greece contains lots of images, including maps, but that's not a guarantee the tag is being used correctly. Looking through the Commons deletion requests that link to the tag, all there were deleted were for reasons that don't help us here (e.g. not actually (or not certainly) works of the Greek government). Indeed the only deletion request there that I've found that appears relevant is Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellenic Coast Guard flag Rethymno.jpg, which was kept, but a photograph of a flag and a map are different enough that the precedent might or might not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I feel a bit silly: it's a map which means {{PD-map}} is the right license. ~ Argenti Aertheri 03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... Dunno whether the court decision in a US case applies to non-US maps also. (By the way, an appellate court decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court. *ugh*) Commons insists that a work be free in both the source country and the US. Haven't seen yet a Greek court case about maps. George Ho (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- If the work is free in the US but not the source country (I don't know if that applies here) then we can keep it locally as {{PD-USonly}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It would apply here except I finally found as good of an answer as we're likely to get. That it's governmental is probably irrelevant as it's a map and those rarely meet the Threshold of Originality, which means these are our answer: ToO in Greece and ToO of maps. So keep is my final answer. ~ Argenti Aertheri 04:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the assertion that this map qualifies for PD-map, even by the threshold of originality standards of the United States. This one in particular includes complex elements like roads, highways, and other transport routes. It doesn't remotely resemble the map like File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif. ✗plicit 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- While you're correct that this map and the appraisers one are quite different, take a look at the casebook. The only ineligible map is one of a fictional world and it's that world that is the subject of the copyright, not the map itself - because real world data cannot be copyrighted. This deletion request and discussion regarding charts and data may be of interest. Sure, this map has roads/highways/etc, but those things exist, their existence isn't in question and thus cannot be copyrighted, the question is whether adding the metro routes pushes it over the ToO in the US or Greece, and I don't think it does. Greece's ToO is:
[T]he work involves skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work.
- The only creative choice here was what colors to use, and different colors wouldn't actually change the work (map). The background with the roads/etc is just a generic street map, and the routes are factual data, so, to quote the casebook:
~ Argenti Aertheri 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)This map represents data. All choices made in the creation of the map were based upon utilitarian and informational considerations.
- I don't agree with the assertion that this map qualifies for PD-map, even by the threshold of originality standards of the United States. This one in particular includes complex elements like roads, highways, and other transport routes. It doesn't remotely resemble the map like File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif. ✗plicit 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It would apply here except I finally found as good of an answer as we're likely to get. That it's governmental is probably irrelevant as it's a map and those rarely meet the Threshold of Originality, which means these are our answer: ToO in Greece and ToO of maps. So keep is my final answer. ~ Argenti Aertheri 04:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- If the work is free in the US but not the source country (I don't know if that applies here) then we can keep it locally as {{PD-USonly}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... Dunno whether the court decision in a US case applies to non-US maps also. (By the way, an appellate court decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court. *ugh*) Commons insists that a work be free in both the source country and the US. Haven't seen yet a Greek court case about maps. George Ho (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I feel a bit silly: it's a map which means {{PD-map}} is the right license. ~ Argenti Aertheri 03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- IMO it depends whether what Google is translating as "texts" is being used to mean "works" or specifically "textual works", both seem equally plausible - especially as Google offers an alternative translation as "official documents". Commons:Category:PD Greece contains lots of images, including maps, but that's not a guarantee the tag is being used correctly. Looking through the Commons deletion requests that link to the tag, all there were deleted were for reasons that don't help us here (e.g. not actually (or not certainly) works of the Greek government). Indeed the only deletion request there that I've found that appears relevant is Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellenic Coast Guard flag Rethymno.jpg, which was kept, but a photograph of a flag and a map are different enough that the precedent might or might not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, now I'm not sure. Near as I can tell the copyright holder is the government, but unless someone who can read Greek comes along, dropping the relevant law here is all I've got: Η προστασία του παρόντος νόμου δεν εκτείνεται σε επίσημα κείμενα με τα οποία εκφράζεται η άσκηση πολιτειακής αρμοδιότητας και ιδίως σε νομοθετικά, διοικητικά ή δικαστικά κείμενα, καθώς και στις εκφράσεις της λαϊκής παράδοσης, στις ειδήσεις και στα απλά γεγονότα ή στοιχεία. Unless a Greek speaker comes along to say otherwise I'm going to have to agree with you. ~ Argenti Aertheri 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The maps are more than just "simple facts and data". Maps require high intuition and skill, especially to perfect proximity and whatevs. As I see, the map looks very complex expressively, even if it's not artwork or... How do you call it? George Ho (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Explicit: To me it looks like it does apply here. "[T]here is no copyright protection for official texts [...] nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." Emphasis mine. ~ Argenti Aertheri 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the casebook, the list consists of just US court cases. I appreciate your interpretation of the Greek law, but I still think the law itself is too vague on maps. Well, the
exact same work
passage may be interpreted as inapplicable to maps, despite their close resemblances to each other. Has any court case from Greece itself addressed copyright of maps yet? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 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.
September 5
- 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⚡ 06:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Chef Gilles Epie, Un Frenchy en cuisine TV show.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epie2020 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This photograph fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), as the current role of the image is redundant compared to the accompanying text and does not significantly increase readers' understanding. However, as the uploader claims to be a friend of the photographer, I would suggest that the uploader contact the photographer and ask him about releasing this photo under a free license via c:COM:VRT. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image doesn't illustrate anything specific about the show, so we should only be using it it's freely licensed. hinnk (talk) 08:03, 5 September 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.
Recent nominations
September 6
- File:Kanye West Famous Music Video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nice4What (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Issues with WP:NFCC #5/#8 (content and contextual significance) – a previous discussion did not lead anywhere. The non-free use rationale says it is to visualize the detail in the wax models made for the music video, [and] display all the public figures that caused much controversies.
However, it shows details poorly because it has to be low-resolution, and I question if it is relevant to show that kind of detail in an image at all (I think readers can understand what naked people in bed would look like). Moreover, the song's article can convey the controversy by listing the figures involved and stating they were depicted naked – again, most readers would understand why that was controversial. The controversial elements are throughout the video; if readers want to see what's in the video, they can watch it via the link in the infobox, and we don't need to single out any one image to focus on in order to discuss those elements. Finally, there may also be issues with nudity here due to BLP concerns, though that may be out of scope for this discussion board. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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: Convert to PD-ineligible-USOnly. No information about TOO in Qatar (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Barwa Group.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Osku87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file is currently tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, but I think it meets the threshold of originality. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:29, 6 September 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.
September 7
This is an alternate version of File:Shakira - Shakira (2014).png for the expanded edition of Shakira's 2014 self-titled album. The differences are very minor. 81.79.96.215 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#3. One version of this image is enough. This doesn't differ significantly from the standard cover, and the text in Shakira (album) § Release and promotion explaining that the guitar is red can be easily understood without illustration. hinnk (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not tagged for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - this cover is substantially the same as the standard cover and the difference can be conveyed with text so fails WP:NFCC#1. At first glance, the description of the second cover appears to be source, but the provided source makes no mention of the alternate cover and discusses only the standard cover. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do think it’s necessary for the article to have both artworks since the expanded edition one is the one available internationally whereas the standard one is mainly available in the US. Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The two are recognizably the same with only colouring differences. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Like Whpq was saying, we probably shouldn't be keeping two versions if they're nearly identical. Looking at the album's listings on MusicBrainz and Discogs, I definitely see copies of the "standard cover" that were released outside the U.S., in Europe, Mexico, and Japan. It seems like both received international releases, but the expanded edition superseded the standard one on some online platforms. Does that sound correct to you? hinnk (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Goth Babe on Lola.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nemov (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not fair use, as the artist is still alive (or was at least last night). I will upload a public domain image from the photos I took. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as replaceable (already replaced and now unused). @Pbritti: For future reference, clearly-replaceable fair use images can be deleted under WP:F7. If you've replaced it with a free image and it's no longer used on any articles, WP:F5 also applies. (See a previous discussion on when FfD is necessary.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa: Thank you! I haven't spent much time in the world of fair-use files besides some recent uploads, so the primer is handy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Id Software.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IceWelder (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
id has an older logo that is below the threshold of originality but still similar to the current one. It's still used for some titles, particularly the Doom rereleases. Would it make sense to replace the non-free logo with the simpler one? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why should a logo last used 27 years ago be used to represent a currently active company? I wouldn't be opposed to including the old logo in the article body, but replacing the active logo (in use for the past 27 years) is nonsense. IceWelder [✉] 17:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems I made a mistake. It turns out id doesn't use the old logo anymore as Google was giving me the cover art for the original releases. However, I do wonder if the current logo is PD as well. For example, the Cyberpunk 2077 logo was denied registration by the U.S. Copyright Office despite having special effects. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Gerhard von Rad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koncurrentkat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Tagged as {{PD-URAA}}, but its author died in 1971, so it was still copyrighted in Germany 24 years later on the URAA date. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Relicense as non-free on the subject's page and remove elsewhere: It seems to me the subject died in 1951, rather than the author. In any case, I don't see any way this could possibly have been PD in Germany before 2022, 70 years after creation. Thus it will be copyrighted in the US until at least 2046, if not longer (should it not have been published in 1951).
- However, I can't find any free alternatives (and in particular the German Wikipedia does not have an image either, despite a rather in-depth article). So, it should be possible to relicense this image as a non-free biographical image for use as identification on the subject's page. Felix QW (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Relicense as non-free and remove outside the Gerhard von Rad article. Am I reading the source info wrong, because it looks to me like the actual author is unknown and the source is von Rad's estate? All we seem to know is that it was taken in 1951 but not published then, the subject of the photo died in 1971, and it was published within 70 years of creation. In that case, it'd be public domain in the U.S. 95 years after its first publication date (which we don't seem to have), and since it's a German work, Commons won't accept it unless the author is identified or it's PD-old-assumed-expired in 2071. hinnk (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Commercial Mole.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nsaum75 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The file is used in two articles, Mayordomo and Mole (sauce). In Mayordomo, it seems decorative at most ("Two varieties of Mayordomo mole"), two prepared dishes would be a better example. Additionally, File:Chocolate mayordomo oaxaca.jpg, or its cropped version, are better options to illustrate the sold products. In Mole, it reads "Jars of commercially available mole negro and mole rojo, as sold in Oaxaca, Mexico". I don't find it particularly relevant to meet the NFC criteria. File:Mole Powder (8265482961).jpg might be a better alternative. (CC) Tbhotch 23:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
September 8
- File:Ted-bundy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Minskist popper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The article has eight freely licensed images of Bundy. We do not also need this non-free image. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this mugshot does not significantly enhance a reader's perception of the topic. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - This was discussed before, though of course, consensus can change. Bremps... 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm surprised the Florida Sunshine Law hasn't come up in the last discussion. Mugshots are public records in Florida. This means the photo probably never was non-free. – The Grid (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is from the state of Utah. Bremps... 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:ADELE ARENA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nikitor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unlike the other three photos uploaded, this one contains no metadata, which made me wonder. A press conference was held in mid-July. Accessing singer Adele's temporary Munich stadium outside concerts was impossible without accreditation. The photo was taken by Uwe Lein/dpa: [2]. The uploaded version is cropped; compare the clouds carefully. Update: I tried to inform the Polish uploader by adding a message to his talk page as the instructions requested, but it was rejected; I received this template: [3]. Oroborvs (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Oroborvs: That file is on Commons, and is not used on the English Wikipedia. We can't do anything about it here, but you can nominate it for deletion at its Commons file page; see c:Commons:Deletion requests for more information on this. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. Oroborvs (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:49, 8 September 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:J. Cywinski.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adrem1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unlikely own work, rather resembling a low resolution scan. Probably unlikely to conform to non-free use guidelines as the subject is still alive. Felix QW (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Pro Wrestling Illustrated March 2014 cover.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Armbrust (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines, which recently concluded, showed that the first eight years of this publication are in the public domain. There's absolutely no reason for a fair use cover when a PD cover can be uploaded, other than satisfying those editors obsessed with reflecting only the 21st century or a 21st-century mindset. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- A free cover was uploaded to Commons over seven months ago and replaced this cover in the article, which means it will likely be speedied instead. Before you rush to sweep this under the rug, something to consider. Screengrabs of photos from professional wrestling magazines and related subject-specific media started appearing on Commons in significant numbers about five or six years ago. Other editors began ramping up that activity during the past year or two. It appears there's a great many articles in this topic area containing non-free images when a Commons category full of images exists, not to mention numerous other images residing on magazine issues in the public domain that have not yet been uploaded to Commons. Evidently, none of the editors who homestead project areas related to non-free content have endeavored to proactively root out these images. Check out the uploader's passive-aggressive response here and here, for example. I recall a discussion at WT:PW some years ago in reaction to the first attempts at Commons to deal with obvious copyvios, but no real effort to address and attack the problem. It's incongruous with all the talk over the years to the effect that eliminating copyvios and minimizing non-free content on Wikipedia is a high priority. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Gonickommphone.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't think this comic strip is contextually significant to the article about its author. Non-free images of creative works can be used to visually identify their creator's style or methods, but the article doesn't have any sourced (independent) commentary about the strip or its style, or that it's representative of the author's overall body of work. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:A Man Could Stand Up (Ford Madox Ford novel).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This book cover may be in the public domain, but it is not a faithful 2D reproduction. A new copyright was created when this photo was taken. ✗plicit 23:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as (presumably) non-free derivative of a free work. This makes it clearly replaceable for the purpose of identifying that free work, so it can't be kept as WP:NFC. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
September 9
- File:Archibald Joyce (British Composer) obituary portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Physeters (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Since uploading this file, I have purchased a much better image of the subject that I'm pretty much certain is in the public domain: c:File:Archibald Joyce.jpg Assuming this is true, and I've not seriously misunderstood British copyright law, hosting this image is no longer necessary. Physeters 05:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. You are absolutely right, the new image is both better and free! Felix QW (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as replaceable with a free image. (It's definitely free for our purposes, regardless of British copyright law; Wikipedia goes by the US definition of public domain, which includes anything published before 1929. If it weren't public domain in Britain, we'd just remove it from Commons and host it here as {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}.) jlwoodwa (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Sigil title screen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loafiewa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
John Romero's website has a version of the logo without the fancy background. I think the alternate logo is below the threshold of originality and could be used in place of this non-free one. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Lucozade logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused and replaced by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:2012 Packers Seahawks Final Play.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aqwfyj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCCP #8, which states that an image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
The screenshot in question is just a snapshot of a controversial play, one that cannot be grasped by one still image. The crux of the play was who had possession of the ball and when did they have possession. This still image, at best, provides a difficult agglomeration of players, hands and a barely noticeable football. It does not provide clarity on the topic of the article and its omission would not be a detriment to the article. An example of an American football image that would be encyclopedic would be a player with both feet in bounds when the call was that he was out-of-bounds, or something similar that is clarified by a snapshot in time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kept at previous FFD. Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Similar concerns at two files I listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 3 that were just deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
September 10
- File:USL Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I think this logo is below c:COM:TOO US so I relicensed it to {{PD-textlogo}} but it was reverted by Stevencocoboy. Leave it up for discussion. Jonteemil (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
September 11
- 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⚡ 06:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Grant medical college 1860.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Drshenoy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
WP:F8, this file is redundant with one with the same name on WikiCommons Bremps... 03:42, 11 September 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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Pedialyte front 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Possible copyrighted packaging issue, especially we cannot know if the image of the strawberry used by the package label is commercially-licensed (e.g. from Flickr or Commons) or not. An admin may blur the packaging if necessary though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 11 September 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:Bart-Mangled Banner.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wimpyguy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The flag mooning is only mentioned in the plot section of Bart-Mangled Banner, with no other mention of its significance, so I don't think it meets NFCC criteria 8. Xeroctic (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Carola The Flame.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jaan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
DePRODded sample may still have issues of contextual significance toward the singer Carola Standertskjöld. Particularly, doesn't reflect critical commentary about her singing the song. Rather the description about the song is brief. George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:MinaParole.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jaan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
DePRODded sample may still have issues of contextual significance about the song parole parole. Doesn't reflect what the text describes about the song. Doesn't signify what is already understood without the sample. Rather the sample may have been used to merely identify the portion itself and identify the song without much context or understanding of the song's significance. George Ho (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
September 12
- File:1Q84bookcover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oona Wikiwalker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I think this was converted directly from File:1Q84bookcover.jpg, resulting in a similarly blurry image with a greater filesize. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:PBS NewsHour Logo 2024.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Akandkur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per Undeletion request regarding files deleted by Taivo, this logo should be relicensed as (PD-US-1978-89) and move it to Wikimedia Commons similar to main PBS logo, because according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino it become free through formalities. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.svg regarding the older variant of PBS logo, which also resulting in kept. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Footer
Today is September 12 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 12 – (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 "===September 12===" 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.