Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	47	20	67
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	3	5	8
FfD	0	5	5
AfD	9	78	87

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.

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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

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:
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.
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.)
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 an OTRS 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.
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.
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

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2021 October 13}}` 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=2021 October 13}}` 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=2021 October 13}}` 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 1928, not 1922.
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}}.

Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
Low quality – The image 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 file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Administrator instructions

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:

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[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:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

October 5

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light car barn.jpg

[edit]

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep: WP:NFCC#3b is ridiculous, simply reduce the image size. WP:NFG is merely a guideline that states it's okay on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it doesn't need to be in the gallery, but the car barn is decently discussed in the article, an important part of the complex written about, and this is the only image that depicts it. It's likely a free image anyhow, it's so old, though I haven't found the original source. As for WP:NFCC#8, I already cover that it's a significant part of the complex with enough discussion to warrant an illustration. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- The file description page - which you wrote - and its use in the article doesn't support any of that. The assertion that it's "as small a version as possible", at 3710x1974 px, is ridiculous on the face of it. The image isn't discussed at all in the article; the sum total of critical commentary is the caption "Car barn and powerhouse, undated". Use of {{non-free historic image}} generally requires critical commentary on that specific image, not its subject - that the subject no longer exists would strengthen a different base rationale (typically identification), but isn't one in and of itself. And no, it doesn't identify the article's subject, which is the office complex; what this image covers gets all of one sentence in the article body and two words in the lead. Maybe an acceptable fair-use rationale could be written to use this image, but this ain't it.
  I do agree that it's likely free. It looks like newsprint, so was probably published promptly after creation, meaning it dates to 1930 at the latest and either is now or will be public domain within the next few years. Best bet to keep this image would be to contact that blogger and ask him where he got it from. —Cryptic 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - I already contacted the blogger, and he has no idea anymore, nor could I find the source myself. I can work towards adding more about the car barn in the article, but can you show me a better example of a nonfree file like this with a good rationale, so I can improve this one? And/or if you want to help correct it yourself, please do. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - Since we don't have a better source, we have to assume that the file is unfree. However, due to the age, there is also the question on whether the image is thought to satisfy WP:NFCC#1. What attempts have been made to determine that there are no other photos which are in the public domain due to lack of notice or renewal? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - I have been exhaustively searching the web for this file, and ones like it. So far the best I've got of the car barn is a low-res photo of the side, without showing the words printed on the front, and without showing the powerhouse. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        It sounds as if you have been searching the wrong place. The web did not exist back in the days, so the obvious place to publish photos was not on the web but on paper. What attempts have been made to see if anything was published on paper and whether any such material happens to be in the public domain? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Is this serious, or humor? I have been a historical researcher for well over a decade. I am not sure if you are, but I know the best avenues for research. The blogger, Don, found the photos online, and thus they are certainly online somewhere. And you might not know, but digital archives like the Library of Congress, Internet Archive, Google Books, and local sources like the Columbus Metropolitan Library, Westerville Historical Society, etc., etc., have far more old documents, newspapers, photographs, and books available online than you could find with countless hours of manually searching paper volumes. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:June Havoc photo from Anna Christie on Celanese Theatre.jpg

[edit]

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary failing WP:NFCC#8. The breadth and scope of the subject's career does not need an image to demonstrate it as that is accomplished with the text in the article with her credits and so fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have to say what first comes to mind is the "old chestnut" that a picture is worth a thousand words. I think that this is particularly true with a visual artist such as an actor or actress. It is true, of course, that the text indicates that June Havoc played the part of Anna Christie in a performance of the Eugene O'Neill play on the Celanese Theatre program in 1952. However, that fact does not describe the performance: the look of Ms. Havoc in the role; her costume; the props. The photograph shows Ms. Havoc in character as Anna Christie, which is separate and distinct from the fact that she played the role.Raygauche (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That old chestnut is generally not accepted as a valid reason to keep a non-free image. What is needed is significant independent sourced commentary about the image. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg

[edit]

Pretty much per the previous FfD, where I set out the rationale of why the file was PD, leading it to be kept. However, a bunch of bots keep "edit warring" on it, so I'm bringing discussion here again to gauge consensus on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The previous FFD only considered public domain status in the UK. If it was published in 1929 and in copyright in the UK until 1999, then it's still in copyright in the US - the monstrosity that is the URAA "restored" copyright to foreign works still in copyright in their country of origin in 1996. Particularly heinous for this image, which likely would have been public domain in the US for many decades had it originated there, maybe since publication.
Copyright duration in the US for works-for-hire is 95 years since publication, or 120 since creation if that's sooner. So if you know it was actually published in 1929, it'll become PD in the US in 2025 (at least unless Disney intervenes again). If it was just created in 1929 and not published until later, it might remain under US copyright as long as 2050. —Cryptic 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cryptic, And to further add to that, the "Underground Group" mentioned in the picture is (I believe) the Underground Electric Railways Company of London which was a private organisation, hence copyright expiring 70 years after publication. However, four years later, in 1933, it was absorbed into the London Passenger Transport Board, a government organisation and hence under Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. So, if my understanding is correct, it means that a photograph published later by the same body (or descendent) is more likely to be out of copyright. That's .... bonkers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Lena Horne with Tuskegee airmen.png

[edit]

There is no proof this photo is in the public domain. The uploader first tried to argue that it was a photo taken by members of the US military pursuant to their official duties and thus a US Fed Gov photo, but neither the source of the file (a book) or a HuffPost article linked that features the photo have said where it came from. We can't claim photos are US Gov if no source actually attributes it to the US Gov. The uploader has now changed to a PD-US-no notice tag, which stipulates that the photo was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. None of the sources provided have demonstrated when or where the photo was originally published, or that it was first published without a copyright notice. I reiterate, the uploader has failed to fulfill WP:BURDEN in showing that that this photo is actually in the public domain. My efforts at locating the origins of this photo have turned up nothing. Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep no copyright ever has been asserted - this is clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely - the photo shows a contemporary star posing with Tuskegee Airmen taken January 1, 1945. The photo falls within public domain (The work was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977). If there ever had been a copyright it no longer exists and {PD-US-not renewed} would apply. FYI: This nomination is a spillover from a cantankerous AfD for a Tuskegee Airman named Willie H. Fuller. Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- If this is clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely then surely we can find a source that will WP:PROVEIT is indeed a US military photo? For all we know it could have just been easily been taken by a promotional agency for Horne, by a news agency that was covering her visit, or simply a private photo of an airman (not taken as an official duty). But of course you've abandoned that line of logic since you've opted for a different PD permission tag; you assert, work was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977 and yet you can't demonstrate the original place of publication and/or date. What newspaper? What propaganda publication? What issue and page number? You can't tell us because there is indeed zero proof that this photo meets the terms of that PD tag. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Googling for "Tuskegee airmen" "Lena Horne" site:gov OR site:edu shows 76 results to sort through. I see other photographs of her with them at https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Photos/igphoto/2000982133/ and https://www.aamu.edu/about/inside-aamu/news/polk-exhibit-scheduled-at-aamu.html There should be a government or educational website somewhere we can sort through to find the picture. Searching for .mil shows four more results. Searching for site:org gives 120 results. Anyone know a better way to search for this specific image? Dream Focus 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- tineye.com and paste the image's url (not Wikipedia's file page); or images.google.com, click on the little camera icon, paste the url, and select "Find other sizes of this image: All sizes". I get better results with the less-cropped huffpost version, especially on google. —Cryptic 23:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep I just found the image at The Miami Herald (Miami, Florida) 03 May 1995, Wed Page 180 [1] The image is used as part of a museum exhibit. Far more is written at The Miami Herald (Miami, Florida) 09 Dec 1993, Thu Page 275 [2] showing this historical photograph as part of the The Miami Museum of Science display titled "The Tuskegee Airmen: WWII's Black Aviators". Various newspapers use it, the museum uses it, anyone publishing a book can freely use it, it is clearly public domain. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- "It is used a lot" is not the same as "public domain". Press agency photos are also used a lot. And now the earliest example of publication is 1995, which still falls out of scope for the PD-US no notice tag. Why not use one of the other photos that is clearly marked as a US Air Force photo? OH right, because then it couldn't be levereged to try and save the AfD. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And what would you know! The Independent calls it an Associated Press photo here (scroll through the gallery). This website also attributes it to the AP, as does an official PBS tumblr account post. Press agencies will sometimes provide PD photos to newspapers, but we should have rock solid proof that it actually is PD before trying to compete with AP. Note that even our policy on non-free content at WP:NFCI forbids the use of press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does the Associated Press own it, or just give them something from public domain? Is there any way to find out? Dream Focus 00:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment "...between 1923 and 1963, a published item like a photo had to have a copyright notice, the copyright had to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and — for protection to still exist today — the registration would have had to have been renewed. And, according to the Library of Congress — home of the U.S. Copyright Office itself — “only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed.” That may not be true of every image but it’s certainly true of most of the older news service photos." The legal Genealogist. We can do this all day, but I do not be a a party to another food fight. Battling all across the project with untold Terabytes filling the WP servers - all of this to help diminish the notability of a bonafide war hero. It is a shame :( Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Dream Focus: That's my point exactly, is that we don't know. I wish there was an obvious way of finding out, I'm not aware of any methods. @Lightburst: You're quoting that on the assumption that the photo was published between 1923 and 1963. The earliest example we have of it being published is 1995. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Indy beetle Maybe you will allow us to put it back in the article now? Clearly published and Willie H. fuller is clearly identified. No copyright asserted. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Very good. I still don't think PD is 100% proven per se (since nothing actually says that it is) but I suppose that's good enough. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Of course you don't. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Are you faulting me for being cautious about a press agency photo? You repeatedly lied to say it was a US Gov photo despite having no evidence to support that assertion, and it took all this discussion to finally drag out the photos origins. I think caution was perfectly warranted. At any rate, as long as the details on the file have been updated I think we can call this one a day. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:A screenshot of Smalltalk-76.png

[edit]

Was going to di-replacable-fair-use this, but since it is used on a couple of articles where this would be useful, I think it would be good to have a discussion about this. For each of the uses listed, only Xerox Alto seems like the one most in line with our WP:NONFREE policy. The rest should be removed. And even Xerox Alto's usage may possibly not be in line with our non-free policy. That is my reason for listing this for discussion. Aasim (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It's not impossible to see what a Smalltalk-76 desktop looks like, but it's a very high hurdle for a casual visitor to Wikipedia. Trying to talk about the history of Window-Icon-Mouse-Pointer (a.k.a. WIMP) based GUIs and the desktop metaphar without this image tends to result in reality being twisted by history revisioners, especially fan of Apple and Jobs. It is very important to show this image at key points, and I hope you understand. SUMIM.ST 9:55, 6 October 2021 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUMIM.ST (talk • contribs)

The main concerns here are NFCC 1 and NFCC 8. NFCC 1 prohibits uses where text would suffice. NFCC 8 prohibits uses that would not increase understanding of a topic. Aasim (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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.

October 6[edit]

File:Petra Mutzel.jpg[edit]

Tagged VRT received for 5 months. Upon reviewing the associated VRT ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Central Market midcentury.jpg[edit]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Also dubious WP:NFCC#1 assessment. Why is it believed that no free images exist? The image is from the time when copyright notices and renewals were required. What checks have been made to verify if there are other images which were published without notice or renewal, such as advertisements? Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - this is not a violation of #8, I discuss its Tudor-Revival trim that was in place for its last 36 years, and thus is how many residents identify the building, as stated it was "commonly associated with the building". It also shows the building in the mid-20th century. The only free files show it around the turn of the century, before the automobile era and urban revitalization. The image conveys it as a relic of a past time, an important part of the historical narrative. As for NFCC #1, again, this would be another benefit of talking to me first. I wrote the article on the market, and had a heavily exhaustive search (literally and figuratively) to find free images of the building in this era. All you have to do is ask, not tag-bomb. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- Assuming that this discussion you're referring to above is the second paragraph in Central Market (Columbus, Ohio)#History, then perhaps there's a better way to support what's being claimed than a single citation at the end of the paragraph. Right now, it's not clear (at least in my opinion) whether everything in that paragraph reflects what is written in the cited source or whether the source is for only the last sentence. I'm getting a 404 error when I try and check the source, which is making verifying things a bit hard at the moment. An image isn't automatically "historic" per WP:NFCC#8 (as clarified in item 8 of WP:NFCI, WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:NFC#CS) just because it's old or shows how something looked a long time ago; historic images tend to be ones which themselves are the subject of sourced critical commentary either at the time the image was taken or in the years since. There might be critical commentary added about an image to an article, but it's going to be considered WP:OR in many cases if it's unsourced or vaguely sourced. So, if there's a way to further clarify things about the image in this article by adding more supporting sources or clarifying whether the existing source applies to the entire paragraph, then that might help sort out the NFCC#8 concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - This is a near-repeat of an earlier comment you made to me. If you really think {{Non-free historic image}} is meant for what you claim it is meant for, why not try to reword it? Because as it stands right now, the only part that says "the image itself" has to be the subject of commentary is when the image is from a press agency. For general uses, like sentences above that, it has no such clarification. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - {{Non-free historic image}} is a copyright license template. I didn't create it or any of the other similar templates, but my guess what that they were worded in a way that allowed them to make them easier to apply to certain types of non-free files. Simply adding a non-free copyright license doesn't, however, make a non-free automatically WP:NFCC compliant; even adding a non-free use rationale doesn't make a particular use compliant. The burden falls upon the uploader of a non-free file per WP:NFCCE to provide a valid justification of it's use(s), and any disagreement over this can be resolved through discussions like this. If a consensus is establish in favor of the file's use, then the file will be kept; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - Cool, well it's abundantly clear that the image can be licensed as nonfree-historic without the physical photograph needing to have its own notability. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - And I would be cautious when taking that narrow interpretation - the guidelines/essays you cited to me do not stress that the image itself has to be iconic and subject of commentary, but that the image has to have a historical importance, and parallel critical commentary in the article. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - My interpretation is what I based my comment on. I didn't WP:!VOTE in this discussion, only commented. Either way, if my interpretation is incorrect, then whatever consensus is established will almost certainly not reflect what I posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - I'll fix the dead URL to Edible Columbus, but you're not very clear going on about references and paragraphs, can you explain more clearly what you intend to point out about that? $ɱ$ (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - There's a seven sentence paragraph supported by a single citation at the end. The content spans a 30-year period, and one of the sentences even appears to be an indirect quote attributed to the Governor of Ohio. The only sentence which specifically seems to tie into the market's appearance and thus this file's use is the first sentenace: "In 1930, the market was remodeled by Thomas Tully, with new dormers, half-timber trim, new roof lines, and heating and refrigeration installed." That sentence, however, doesn't seem to be supported by a source. Is all of that content of that paragraph supported by the same single citation? If it is, then perhaps would be better to clarify this (if possible) to make the WP:INTEGRITY a bit clearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - There are three instances that mention timber, several that talk about urban renewal, and one that mentions its historic surroundings, contrasted by the more modern nonfree image here. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - And this about citations is a dead giveaway that you're not a seasoned writer here. You don't have to cite every single sentence, in fact, you're discouraged from doing that. Unless it really needs to be clear, e.g. with a controversial statement, it is better to add the inline citation following all the information being cited, usually at the end of the paragraph. So, yes, those seven sentences were from that reference, and I'm not about to add six more citations just to clutter up the prose. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Another comment - this building is almost always depicted with the Tudor Revival trim. It's the most identifiable feature, and unique for a public building and near-unique entirely for Columbus. This is the case so much that works that talk about it, including A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus, only use a photograph of it with the Tudor Revival exterior. To have an article on the building without this appearance is like having an article on the U.S. Capitol but only depicting it with photographs from its pre-dome state. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:University Hall demolition.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - University Hall in its late stages is discussed, and there's two-three entire paragraphs about its demolition, including saving portions of the building. As well, the visual effect of the image is irreplaceable. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete: I disagree with the assessment given above by the file's uploader. It is true that the building itself is discussed in University Hall (Ohio State University)#History. There's content about how the building began to deteriorate in the 1960s and how it was eventually torn down, but none of these things actually require the reader to see this particular non-free image to be understood per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). There's also a free image of how the building appeared in 1968 which is close enough time wise to show how the building looked before it was demolished; so, the claim of "This historic image depicts a building that no longer exists, and no free images depicting the building at this time are in existence." given in this file's non-free use rationale is, IMO, not really the case. A claim of WP:IRREPLACEABLE doesn't automatically make an image irreplaceable and I'm unable to see how adding this image to the article significantly improves the reader's understanding of the history of the building in such a way that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- If the image doesn't have the shock value of the ripped apart structure, standing in its last moments before erasure, I don't know what to tell you. Columbus has a problem with demolishing historic sites, and images like this are what it takes to keep people from making more examples of this wretched tear-down. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - It's unfortunate some feel that Columbus has a problem with demolishing historic sites, but it's not really Wikipedia's purpose to use non-free images to right such a great wrong. Such image preservation efforts might be better made in other ways. If there's some way to incorporate more sourced critical content either about the image itself or about any controversy associated with the building's deletion that goes beyond "After being closed in 1968 for safety reasons, the building was slated for demolition in 1970, while serving as a symbol for the university's centennial that year. It was completely torn down in 1971.", then perhaps its non-free use would be better justified. That's my assessment and opinion, for sure, and others who feel differently can post otherwise and establish a consensus in favor of the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - It's not necessarily righting a wrong, it's me showing the usefulness of a photograph beyond what you might see as an outsider without a greater understanding of the history and preservation efforts within Columbus, Ohio. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - It's also - and this is important - a key element for historians. We already have a replacement building there, the new University Hall, that looks so much like the old that people tell me that building is old (when it's not). How are readers going to trust a narrative saying it was demolished, or even renovated, without evidence like this? I sure wish a photo like this existed for Rockwood Hall. Was it demolished, or was it remodeled? I made a decision that the best sources and evidence say it was remodeled, but many contemporary sources say otherwise. Same with many myths passed on about Grand Central Terminal. Without presenting photographic evidence, a claim is barely half of what it could be. $ɱ$ (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Apple store 2017-19 renovation.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: no need to see a picture of it being renovated to understand that it was renovated. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - the file demonstrates the reconstruction of the cube with three massive panels of glass per side, and is the only known photograph to show it alongside the temporary Apple store. Both are part of critical commentary in the article. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Soviet Colonel Kornei Mikhailovich Andrusenko.jpg[edit]

ru:Файл:Андрусенко, Корней Михайлович.jpg is listed as non-free. The {{PD-because}} template quotes obsolete legislation. Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:1967 Moturoa V New Plymouth United.jpg[edit]

Unclear why there would be no copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Majura Parkway.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G7. It seems I cropped this from OpenStreetMap when doing the GA review for Majura Parkway about eight years ago, but it never got deployed because File:MajuraParkwayMap.svg, a better map, was done instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Soviet Major General Dmitrii Ivanovich Stankevskii.jpg[edit]

See Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Transition to post-Soviet legislation in Russia: That new Russian law had a general copyright term of 50 years p.m.a.[145] and was retroactive,[146] restoring copyright on works on which the shorter Soviet copyright terms had already expired. The old five-year term is irrelevant. Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:190501 Jang Ki-yong.png[edit]

Blurry. Consider replacing use with File:Jang Ki-yong at 55th Baeksang Arts Awards (1).jpg which is basically the same but less blurry and cropped differently. Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: Per nom, original image was uploaded in 2019 while the more defined image was uploaded two years later. Best to keep the better among the two in comparison to keeping both. Would've been best to overwrite the initial file with the second upload however what's done is done. Suugaapio (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:WDSW-LP CoverageArea.png[edit]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WDSWCoverage.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep: @Stefan2: Contrary to what you said on Commons, that is not Google Maps. That's the FCC's LMS mapping system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- If this is true, then it would perhaps be better to provide a link to the FCC's LMS mapping system as the source of the image instead of linking to a Commons file. The same link could then be added to the Commons file and a comment added to the Commons DR to clarify such. The file might've just been uploaded to Commons with an incorrect license and perhaps it can be shown to actually be OK as {{PD-USgov}} or a similar PD license instead; such a thing, however, will need to be clearly established because this file will end up going if the Commons file ends up going if things remain as is. Moreover, if the Commons file turns out to be OK, there's really no reason to keep a cropped version of it locally here on English Wikipedia. The cropped version could be moved to Commons and the two files' descriptions could be then updated with c:Template:Image extracted and c:Template:Extracted from to show more clearly how the two files are connected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - @Marchjuly: I didn't update the original when I updated the WDSW-LP page, the original was already there. I just cropped it, renamed it (per naming rules), and saved it Wikipedia, not commons since it was FCC LMS. I put the license as CC4.0 as that was what it was by the previous uploader. I have no problem switching the licenses around, that's not a problem. I also have no issue with the image just not being in the article altogether. It's not particularly necessary, but since it was already there (a unique image), I decided to use it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - @Marchjuly and Stefan2: Let me know if this update is sufficent. If not, I am more than happy to do a further update. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - The link you provided does seem to work. If that's deemed sufficient for the Commons file to be kept, it will making keeping this one pretty much automatic. If content created by the FCC falls under WP:PD#US government works, then the only thing that might be needed is to tweak both file licenses to reflect that. Perhaps, c:Template:PD-USGov-FCC would be fine to use and then all that would be needed is to revise the descriptions of the uploaded files accordingly. FWIW, I don't think the CC license is correct because using a zoom feature to create a blown up version of the map seems (at least to me) to be more of a case of c:COM:2D copying than a case of c:COM:DW; so, no new copyright would be established for the zoomed image. People are uploading files to Commons all of the time, and in many cases they misunderstand what "own work" means; thus, their choice of license is based on this misunderstanding. In almost all cases, it's just a misunderstanding and not a case of intentionally trying to deceive. Commons can't, though, simply just accept a claim per c:COM:PCP is there's significant doubt raised and in such cases some supporting evidence is needed for files to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It looked like a Google map to me. A source has now been provided. The source is a page on a server belonging to the United States government. Content on US government websites are normally {{PD-USGov}}, but I notice that it says © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Improve this map in the bottom right of the map. OpenStreetMap maps are freely licensed (but not government works). I can't find any evidence that Mapbox content is freely licensed, but I don't know what Mapbox has contributed to the map. Maybe only background software. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- @Stefan2: As the original shows, with the various buttons, that match the source. Google Maps stopped providing mapping API to websites across the web back in 2018 and the FCC was one of them. Most signs either use MapBox or OpenStreetMap now. So, MapBox is the provider of the map itself, but the information is provided by the FCC. So, {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-FCC}} would still work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Horse and cart near whitwarta, early 1900s.jpg[edit]

Unclear source. If it's from the early 20th century, how can the uploader have obtained the image from the author? Isn't he dead, or did the uploader obtain the image a long time ago? There is also no evidence that the copyright holder has released this into the public domain as stated. Depending on how early into the 20th century this was, it could be that the image is in the public domain because of age, but there is insufficient information to verify this. Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Dr. Rachel Dutton.jpg[edit]

From the linked page:

“

As part of WiGS's goal to expand the Wikipedia page's of women in STEM, Dr. Dutton has shared the photo above for use on Wikipedia.

”

This licence sounds more like {{db-f3}} instead of the licence indicated on the file information page. Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: This doesn't look like a selfie per se which means permission being given by the subject of the photo is probably irrelevant. However, if the person who took the photo can email their WP:CONSENT to WP:Contact VRT, then this probably can be kept. Another possibility could be that this would be considered {{PD-CAGov}} as explained in WP:PD#US government works. The subject is a professor at the University of California, San Diego which could mean that this photo was taken by an employee of the university as part of their official duties. The State of California is one of the states in which works created by state employees as part of their official duties are considered to be PD; so, the question is whether university employees are considered state employees. Perhaps this will help clarify that. It seems as if this photo might fall under item "2. Personal Works" in the "Copyright Ownership by Category of Work" section. I do agree, however, with the Stefan2 that if the copyright holder's intent was the release this under a "for Wikipedia use only" type of license, then that wouldn't be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- I'm pretty sure works by UC employees don't count as works by state employees for the policy you are discussing. Otherwise all publications by UC researchers would be PD automatically (as publications by US federal government researchers are), and they are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - That's fine though the general copyright statement I linked to in my post does make a distinction between "1. Scholarly & Aesthetic Works", and other types of works. I thought that perhaps either "2. Personal Works" or "7. Institutional Work" might be pertain to a photo such as this, but those do seem to imply that such works aren't automatically PD; so, perhaps university employees aren't considered state employees, at least not in the sense that they would fall under "PD-CAGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The permission statement indicates https://womengs.wixsite.com/home/post/hosted-gs-seminar-speaker-dr-rachel-dutton as the image's source which is a CCBY 4.0 licence. The purpose of the "use on Wikipedia" statement should not be interpreted as a limitation on the licence (which would be inadmissible) but as a rationale for publicising the licence. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- That does makes sense and if the licensing statement is acceptable, then there's no reason this can be kept by simply tweaking the file's license to match the information of the source link as long as the photo originated with the source website. It does seem, however, that the website might've received the photo from the subject and thus I'm not sure that the website's copyright statement is acceptable in such a case. It's a bit of a pain perhaps, but it seems the best thing would be to have whoever took the photo simply send a CONSENT email to VRT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Shelbourne Valley.jpg[edit]

It says that the image May be reproduced for noncommercial purposes which conflicts with the claim that the image has been released to the public domain by the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Fratie-Dreptate-chirilic.png[edit]

Replaced by File:Fratie-Dreptate-chirilic.svg. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Michael Chavis July 2019.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Deleted on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

db-author requested. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kepifamas.jpg[edit]

No evidence of permission. The uploader is also the subject of the photo, meaning he likely isn't the photographer and therefore does not hold copyright. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

delete per nom. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Recent nominations[edit]

October 7[edit]

File:Gladiator (subtitled).png[edit]

I believe it fails WP:NFCCP#8; it is only as a tangential example in Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant, an article unrelated to the movie except for covering the source of the words as depicted in the image. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete I note that the fair use rationale says that the file is used for "Commentary on the use of the phrase in modern cinema, and its prevalence in modern concepts of Roman times, specifically in and concerning the film Gladiator". But the actual text of the article currently (and indeed when the image was added) does not discuss the film Gladiator at all. If there were actual substantive discussion of the use of the phrase in Gladiator specifically that would maybe be one thing (though I'm skeptical!), but as it is I don't see how the image can possibly be said to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" as required by NFCC#8. What does showing a screenshot of a character saying something give readers that just saying in the article that they said it doesn't? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office.jpg[edit]

This violates WP:NFCC#1 as the building is virtually unchanged in 2021 - see File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office 01.jpg. However, the uploader keeps removing the {{subst:rfu}} tag, in violation of WP:CSD: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cool, like it's alright that you were uncivilly scouring my edits to tag a mass of my images for immediate deletion, no discussions? It's hard for me to not appear snarky, but actually look at the image. This is the railway building at its height, the Yost & Packard masterpiece at its height. The roof is immaculate, with roughly hexagonal roof tiles and a beautiful conical crown. These elements are now gone. The windows on the building were double-hung, with lattice tops, and at least one with a decorative striped awning. The west facade featured a doorway with steps, and you can see what the train operators looked like, how they were dressed. The south facade featured another door with steps. And overall, the building and street condition are immaculate. -None- of these features are still present today, as the building sinks into disrepair, with vandalism, poorly painted-over graffiti, boarded windows, a poor new roof, crumbling brickwork, overgrown plants... I shouldn't need to spend 20 minutes typing this all up for you. Please use a critical eye to changes, "virtually unchanged in 2021" is dramatically disingenuous.

ɱ

(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Columbus Developmental Center.jpg[edit]

This violates WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by File:Columbus, Ohio c. 1897 02.jpg as there are virtually no noticeable differences since 1897. However, the uploader keeps removing the {{subst:rfu}} tag in violation of WP:CSD: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Okay, moving onto another image with stark differences? Because they were taken at two different angles, some of it is not directly comparable, but you can tell some differences in the surroundings immediately. While the old image had immaculately cut grass and an ornate lamp-post, the newer image features overgrown plants and the tall conventional parking lot lighting that is usually panned from a design standpoint. The north wing of the building is gone. The central tower's roof is also gone, was that not an immediate massive change? Again, disingenuous for you to say there were "virtually no noticeable differences" when such a massive element of tiles, dormers, finials, and lattice fencework is simply -gone-. The other apparent changes also relate to the roof - where there once were cupolas, finials, and steeples, ivy and tall chimneys, in the later image, the roof is stripped to its bare necessities. Lastly, this is the only photograph available to the public of the building in color, and in the modern era. Without this factor, it is impossible for readers to correctly judge the colors of the brickwork, stone trim, roof elements, etc.

ɱ

(talk) 13:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Nixon in Colombia.JPG[edit]

It appears that this is a crop of a photo from the cover of the May 26, 1958, issue of LIFE: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/a-history-of-the-secret-service/24/. Copyright for this issue was renewed in 1986 (registration number RE0000312064), so unless it can be shown that the photograph is in the public domain for another reason or that permission was given to freely license it, it can be undeleted in 2054 (95 years after publication). clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: the file had already been copied to Commons, so see the deletion discussion there as well: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon in Colombia.JPG. clpo13_(talk) 23:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:NelsonBaker.GIF[edit]

Insufficient evidence to say that this photograph is public domain. There's no author information, so the claim that the author has been dead 70 years can't be verified. No rationale for public domain status in the US has been given, either. clpo13_(talk) 22:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: the file had already been copied to Commons, so see the deletion discussion there as well: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NelsonBaker.GIF. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Samples of Dave Matthews Band songs[edit]

Samples, previously tagged for deletion, are used in their respective articles about songs by Dave Matthews Band. I think the usages are merely identifications of respective songs. Critical commentary may not sufficiently support the samples. The samples would fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Jess Glynne - This Christmas.png[edit]

Cover art identifies the (digital) single release of Jess Glynne's rendition of "This Christmas", originally sung by Donny Hathaway. The Jess Glynne version charted in the UK and Italy, all right. However, I'm not confident that the image improves understanding of a Christmas song that has been sung by different artists. Furthermore, the article doesn't describe anything else valuable about the recording itself, especially the Background subsection. Rather any valuable info about the Jess Glynne version, even as a top British hit, should be merged into the section about cover versions, IMO. Moreover, the cover art itself doesn't improve understanding of the recording's notability, and the recording's notability itself would be already understood without this image. In short, it may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#3a. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep. ~~I don't particularly care if this image is deleted or not~~ I don't agree with this nomination. The nomination seems to be focusing on having a subsection for Glynne's cover of the song, which is not a discussion for and beyond the scope of FfD. (That being said, to dispel what the nominator said: Glynne's cover is the most successful version of the song in terms of chart performance, including Osmond's original. No other version has peaked as high on a national non-radio singles chart than Glynne's has, so any argument that this should not have more of a focus than a sentence in a "cover versions" section is frankly bollocks.) Cover artworks also aren't uploaded and do not primarily function to "improve understanding of a recording's notability". They are used to identify the work in question, which has nothing to do with whether or not the song is notable. WP:NFCC says nothing about notability; WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, in my opinion, because the cover of Osmond's original doesn't identify Glynne's more successful version. Ss112 10:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
All right. "Notability" is never mentioned in NFCC as I hate to admit. Nonetheless, in the past, one or a few more other editors used "notability" as part of their arguments. Well, maybe I shouldn't use #3a criterion. BTW, Glynne's version was successful in just her home country but performed either modestly or so-so in another country. If that's your definition of success, then how do you explain deletion of a cover art of Collette's take on "Ring My Bell" and Jessica Mauboy's take on "Something's Got a Hold on Me", which were deleted without objection in other FFD discussions? --George Ho (talk)

Almost forgot: I nominate this image not because of article quality but because I don't think this image is necessary to understand the song and the release in question. Also, I want to be sure that deleting the image would not affect how readers learn about the song, its history, and its versions. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What has happened in other FfDs, whether editors didn't care or not, has nothing to do with this one. Glynne's version is the most successful and highest-placed version of this song in any one country. I didn't claim it had international success, but that being said, I don't see why we only need to retain the original, especially in cases like this where Glynne's version has been more successful and is arguably better recognised in a country than the original. This assumes the original is always more important and this just isn't the case. The A-side of a 7" vinyl can hardly identify a version of the song issued 50 years later in the 2020s by a completely different artist that had more success with their version. Ss112 02:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Glynne's version is the most successful and highest-placed version of this song in any one country. I think the assumption that Glynne's version will be more successful and well known than Hathaway's original screams recent-ism, doesn't it? Furthermore, I hardly see why "importance" of Glynne's version would be affected by deleting the cover art. The importance (or lack of it?) of Glynne's version is already understood enough by most readers, and the cover art is... excessive, isn't it? This assumes the original is always more important and this just isn't the case. Since the original's debut, the song has become one of staple Christmas songs especially from the US. (see "Cover versions" section.) Moreover, the original singer was also one of its songwriters, and the original version re-charted in Christmas of last year. Since the song became more acknowledged especially in the 1990s, many other singers before Glynne covered the song. The assumption that Glynne's version is more important than other versions made prior... isn't what I have in mind. The A-side of a 7" vinyl can hardly identify a version of the song issued 50 years later in the 2020s by a completely different artist that had more success with their version. I don't know why you said that. The side label used as lead image identifies an early, original release of Hathaway's version. The original version performed modestly in early 1970s, so I'm using that side label. Also, Americans didn't receive an official picture sleeve when the single was released to them. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
George, I already outlined how Glynne's cover version is the most successful. I'm talking about in terms of chart performance. I didn't think I needed to keep repeating this. That's not "recent-ism", that's literal fact. I absolutely believe Glynne's is the most important cover version of the song because of this. Also, I never said Glynne's cover was "more important" than Hathaway's original. I said it was more successful on the main singles chart of a country than any other version, including Hathaway's original, which is fact. Please do not attempt to twist my words while literally quoting me directly. You are now getting outside the scope of something that should be at FfD. I'm no longer going to speak about whether Glynne's cover should have its own section, because what is said here won't affect that overall section, so please stop bringing this up. "I don't know why you said that." Because you're saying we should get rid of the cover art for Glynne's version, and that somehow the face of a 7" vinyl that you uploaded suffices as the only picture we should have on the article. It doesn't and can't identify the more chart-successful Glynne cover or any other version, full stop. Is it detrimental if we remove the 7" vinyl cover? I don't think so. I notice that my image for Glynne's version predates your upload of the 7" vinyl cover, which seems almost done to spite me or because I uploaded a cover for another version, so if we keep anything, I say we keep Glynne's cover and get rid of the picture of a vinyl, which I believe is inconsequential on any article. I don't even believe it helps readers' understanding in identifying Hathaway's version, because Hathaway's version became a "Christmas staple" years after the era where its single would have been distributed on vinyl, which you even said yourself. Most articles you've furnished with a picture of a 7" vinyl A-side have not been benefited with said picture, nor has this article. Only people old enough to have it at the time or vinyl collectors would even know what the face of the vinyl looks like. Actual covers are always more important in my opinion, and you're yet again attempting to get rid of one here. Ss112 07:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I notice that my image for Glynne's version predates your upload of the 7" vinyl cover, which seems almost done to spite me or because I uploaded a cover for another version. I uploaded the label identifying Hathaway's original version not to spite you. Actually, if the digital re-release of the original had an available cover art, I would have used that available cover art just as long as better chart performance prevails. The same couldn't be said for Stand by Me (Ben E. King song), however. The 1980s re-releases of the other song had picture sleeves, but the FFD discussion led to keeping the 1960s single release lacking a picture sleeve instead because the original release was successful and was deemed to be used by default. Back to the side label, I think the side label helps. The original Hathaway version charted on Billboard in early 1970s as written in prose. Maybe I should duplicate the info in chart form if necessary.
Most articles you've furnished with a picture of a 7" vinyl A-side have not been benefited with said picture, nor has this article. Oh really? With help of captions, those labels should help readers realize how most US vinyl single releases were manufactured and distributed before CD singles became popular in the 1990s. Furthermore, they help readers stop assuming that most pre-1990s US singles had picture sleeves, which were contradicted by those existing products themselves. Nonetheless, some other editors disagree with my views and have been fans of cover arts. To me, using facts, including factual visuals, helps improve understanding of the past. Furthermore, some other editors are tempted to add a cover art probably due to their dissatisfaction with side labels as lead images. But I'm doing my best to relate well to most readers. Only people old enough to have it at the time or vinyl collectors would even know what the face of the vinyl looks like. That shouldn't prevent readers, including the young, from being curious about older single releases, should it? Indeed, I even overlooked but then realized especially via research that most American single releases missed out picture sleeves, while overseas single releases somehow contained picture sleeves.
Actual covers are always more important in my opinion, and you're yet again attempting to get rid of one here. The criterion's purpose is making sure that the non-free content improves understanding of the article topic, i.e. the 20th-century Christmas song, and is too significant for deletion. Well, not that covers are or aren't "important", but covers have had mass appeal and has attracted most customers. However, the Jess Glynne cover art is supposed to improve understanding of one of 20th-century Christmas songs, which is the purpose of WP:NFCC#8. I don't see how it does. To me, the cover art makes readers recognize the release that was successful in one country... but is probably ineffective in illustrating the song's long history and prominence. The cover art is just... there... as part of the version's success and to display the singer's appearance, but I wonder whether the cover art adds anything much to readers. From what I learned in another FFD discussion, eliminating the cover art might affect a reader's enjoyment, but the enjoyment itself isn't part of NFCC. In other words, the content's ability to be enjoyable wouldn't improve its ability to comply with the NFCC. Instead, understanding the article topic is one of keys to prolong the non-free content's survival. Another key is making sure that free content, especially text, isn't enough for such understanding. To me, unfortunately, deleting the Jess Glynne cover art from the article does not and may not affect what a reader can (already) learn about the song especially by reading the whole article. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I say we keep Glynne's cover and get rid of the picture of a vinyl, which I believe is inconsequential on any article. To you, the vinyl label is "inconsequential", but deleting the label would increase or please people's (poor/bad) assumptions about older vinyl single releases using generic sleeves, i.e. lacking picture sleeves and discourage others further from using such labels. Furthermore, that would affect readers' understanding of how vinyl singles, like the original Hathaway version, were variously manufactured and distributed in different regions at the time. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
George, writing interminable paragraphs to each of my points is not going to change my mind that the Glynne cover should be removed. The Glynne artwork does inherently not carry with it the fact that the song peaked higher on a national singles chart than any other version. That's what it sounds like you're trying to say above. It's art; it can't say that itself. It's to identify the most chart-successful version of the song, period. Your reasoning for uploading pictures of the A-sides of 7" vinyls sounds like an agenda to "educate" readers about the fact that vinyls were previously not packaged with cover artworks, and that sounds like the wrong reason for editing. Any cover for any song could be said to be "just... there...", and most of your points could be made about any of the, I repeat, inconsequential vinyl A-sides you've uploaded. I said nothing about "enjoyment"; I didn't upload the cover for my or any reader's "enjoyment", so your point about this is a response to something nobody had suggested. I'm not replying to you beyond this, as it will just encourage you to further clog up this thread with your rants suggesting things I didn't even say, and make any admin ignore any valid point I made just so they'll see you arguing, give up reading and delete the cover. I didn't know before, but now I've learned you are one of many users on this site who'll endlessly rant at any and everybody who disagrees with you. Please spare me the green inline quotations of what I've said, it's pretentious and ridiculous, and I'll ask you to never bother me with the nonsense you posted on my talk page earlier today again. I say keep the Glynne cover, delete George Ho's picture of the A-side of the Hathaway vinyl nobody ever cared about because the song wasn't successful upon release on vinyl in the 1970s. Thank you. Ss112 10:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll vote keep the Hathaway vinyl if you nominate it for deletion. George Ho (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) Yes George, thanks for clarifying something that was never in doubt. Ss112 10:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nom's further comment: Identifying the most successful cover version of all cover versions with a cover art... If deleting the Glynne cover art affects understanding of the very old Christmas song, then I can stand corrected. However, art or not, to me, keeping the cover art of the successful cover version just because it's part of the successful version of a very old Christmas song and/or just because the vinyl label is "inconsequential" (to you), looks less than appealing (to you), and would be the only image left... There must be other reasons to keep, i.e. never delete, the cover art. Neither success nor being negative about the vinyl label should be the only, if not main, reasons to keep the cover art. Maybe recognition is also it? But that would make text content appear inadequate to help readers recognize the version, wouldn't it? Honestly, I trust the ability of the text content to teach readers about the song as much as that of the vinyl label I uploaded. When I read info about the version's chart performance, I can already understand and recognize its success. Is a cover art needed for understanding and recognizing the article topic? Would deleting the cover art affect such understanding? Why or why not? If being a success is enough to keep the Jess Glynne cover art, then... I don't know what else to say besides, "That would contradict the decision made about the cover art of the successful but lesser-known Collette version of the other song". The original Hathaway version charted well in one Christmas music chart in the early 1970s and has been well known to many, especially those who covered the song. Some like the uploader can say that the original version wasn't successful, but to my eyes, the Hathaway version has been successful since its original release. --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Are you not able to leave this alone? Have you never encountered or do you not expect opposition when you nominate something for deletion? It's like you can't believe the user who uploaded the file actually disagrees with you and you just have to keep replying, like you're offering something new. (You aren't.) You've already elaborated on this in three very lengthy replies above. Who do you think is reading all this? (Those are all rhetorical questions, in case it wasn't clear.) Imagine putting up this much of a fight over one cover artwork when you nominate files day-in day-out. It's seemingly all you do on Wikipedia. I'm in disbelief you have this much to say about whether one damn file gets deleted or not. You've contributed 10 KB of text on one image file. I think we can safely say it's not swaying any administrator who's assessing this, nor any other user, and nobody is reading your rants at this point, myself included. Any sensible user can see you're wasting your time. Time to move on. Ss112 14:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 8[edit]

File:Hitomi Soga.jpg[edit]

Delete: Subject is still living, and photo is from a news agency (Kyodo). Fails criteria (1) and (7) of WP:NFC#UUI. Muzilon (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep: Currently the only photo of the subject as a adult on Wikipedia. Angelgreat (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I highly doubt that outweighs WP:NFC#UUI in this case, I'm afraid. Provided that a relatively high-profile person is not deceased, the usual Wikipedia expectation is that it should be feasible for a freely-licensed photo to be taken. (In fact there is a group photo featuring Soga on Commons, although the resolution isn't good enough to be cropped for an infobox, unfortunately.) Muzilon (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Joelizards2006.jpg[edit]

The fair use rationale fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no sourced commentary supporting the file's use in either of the two articles fair-use is claimed in. Nthep (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The commentary was removed at the time by another user, and has since been restored. Dealmaces (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

There are also no references or citations that would support this file not having been made up on the spot: there are no other references to the comic or the author on the web --scruss (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:N++ game logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete local copy as scaled-down duplicate of Commons file File:N++ Logo.jpg. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Superseded by File:N++ logo.png. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 16:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Parkour Moves list.jpg[edit]

Unused screenshot of a website, likely copyright violation. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Pepy.png[edit]

Unused logo of non-notable company. Article about subject was deleted. Also above the threshold of originality, with no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:AllThingsPass.jpg[edit]

Unused album cover, could find no evidence of a Creative Commons license. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is my own creation, and file. It is designed by me Darrin HussGhostchild (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC) for my Psyche 12" vinyl single and the image is widely available on Streaming outlets such as Amazon, Spotify, Apple Music, and Discogs as mentioned in the information. Self published.^[1][]

File:Ambronite drink.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted design. Probably doesn't qualify for fair use as there is a version of the packaging that does not meet the threshold of originality. [3] Ixfd64 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:IHWC - Gold.jpg[edit]

Deleted on Flickr. The licence can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Ambronite pouches.jpg[edit]

Original image can be found on other sites prior to the upload to Wikipedia. [4] No evidence uploader is the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Remembrance Day ceremony (Anchorage, Alaska - 1992).jpg[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by N55NE (talk · contribs): The user never provided a copyright tag. However, in Special:Diff/189955917 he wrote No copywright in the permission field in the information template. Does this constitute a licence? I'm unsure.
File uploaded by Dilnuwan (talk · contribs): No licence. Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Ukrainian TU-143 being loaded unto a launch platform.jpg[edit]

Unclear source. The source is claimed to be Ukrainian Wikipedia Commons, but there is also a link to Russian Wikipedia, although the link goes to a different photo. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Pyramid lake contrast enhanced.jpg[edit]

Unclear source. Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete as copyright violation. The image appears to be a derivative work of File:Pyramid lake pah rah.jpg. Because the latter is released under a Creative Commons Share Alike license, the derivative work must also use a similar license and cannot be released into the public domain. We can't simply change the license on the infringing image because "viral" licenses are not automatic. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Velka amerika.jpg[edit]

The uploader never provided a source or author. The information was added by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) in Special:Diff/560645152, but without telling where the information comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Copyright for logos.svg[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Smriti Irani 1.jpg[edit]

Sourced to c:File:Smriti Irani(c).jpg which was deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Thekeys.jpg[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:NZ-Sandringham.png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Headlight Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curve.JPG[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:The Nine Platform Racing 2 Itmes.png[edit]

Simply stating that the images could be used as signatures does not mean they are released into the public domain. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Trolls franchise logo.jpeg[edit]

Possibly exceeds the threshold of originality due to the effects. Logo is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Unified Messenger Screen Shot.png[edit]

Unused screenshot of copyrighted program Windows Mail. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Yoruk Mezar.jpg[edit]

Low resolution and lack of metadata suggest that the image was copied from elsewhere. Image is not useful due to its small size. I've already replaced it with File:Yörük Ali Efe Müzesi13.JPG on the parent page. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:YorukAli Ev.jpg[edit]

Low resolution and lack of metadata suggest that the image was copied from elsewhere. Image is not useful due to its small size. I've already replaced it with File:Yörük Ali Efe Müzesi2.JPG on the parent page. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:YorukAlitek.jpg[edit]

No indication who the copyright holder is, let alone any evidence that they have released the photo into public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 9[edit]

File:Jang Jin-young.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Subject has since received Wikimedia Commons compliant images, therefore this fair use image is no longer needed. BriefEdits (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ernest Morial.gif[edit]

The source claims fair use, not cc-by-sa. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Morristown-town-morris-nj.gif[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Police Roll of Honour Trust Crown Badge.png[edit]

United Kingdom government works are protected by 50 years from publication. Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, I have uploaded a cleaner copy, removing the signature and background, moved the image to the top of the Police Roll of Honour Trust article, relicensed to non-free and added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:KINLOCKBLUFF.JPG[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded on the 23rd of December: Sourced to a book. Seems to be this book. Uploader seems to claim {{PD-US-no notice}}, but the book seems to be from 1992, which is too recent for that tag.
File uploaded on the 29th of December: No evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:The title card of Bubble and Squeek.png[edit]

{{PD-US-not renewed}} may not be used for British works. A work doesn't enter the public domain only because a company is defunct. Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep', relicensed to non-free title-card and added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Images of Bee Gees' I Started a Joke[edit]

I'm nominating both images for discussion not to replace both of them. Actually, the song didn't have a British single release but was released as a single outside the UK, so I guess using picture sleeve makes everybody, if not all of us, happy. I don't know whether having two picture sleeves complies with WP:NFCC#3a. If not, let's keep either one then. Preferably, the continental European picture sleeve (the one with the yellow background) should be kept, and the French one should be deleted. But you decide. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 10[edit]

File:Pangasinense People.jpg[edit]

The source is Facebook, claiming that the PD-Gov applies to official social media presences even when unstated, and claims of PD are false as archives of government site to 2019 point to copyright either way. I think an NFUR could be written for this image, within context to the rest of the article, but not certain. Either way, this licensing is incorrect. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep The image is present on a Philippine government website [5]. The site copyright notice says content is created and maintained by the Provincial Information Office, and owned by the government Province of Pangasinan. It is thus effectively public domain, as as explained in Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines. I have updated the image template to recommend moving the image to Wikimedia Commons. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]
The website must state that it is public domain for PD-PhilippinesGov to apply. The website in question was ARR at the time of uploading. This will not stand on commons. This is copyrighted. I wish it worked the way you argue, but it unfortunately doesn't. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sennecaster: This has already been discussed in the case of Smithsonian on Commons, but ARR use by governments is a complicated matter. Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that public domain requires some kind of explicit "public domain" notice, but that is not the case on enwiki. Public domain is inferred, and the rules regarding that process are laid out in broad strokes on WP:PD. As far as I can tell there is no special exemption to this policy for the Philippines, nor does PD-PhilippinesGov require sources explicitly state the images are public domain. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment: @Sennecaster and Elephanthunter: this is very tricky. I usually consider official socmed pages of the likes of the Province of Pangasinan as under PD. But there is one caveat: did the photographer of this particular file took this photo as part of his/her regular duty as an employee of the Provincial Government? See c:COM:Philippines#Commissioned works, rule #1 for works created during employment. If the second case (letter b.) is the case here (in which the IP rights belong to the province), then this passes Commons' house rules on policy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[]
It is generally presumed that in the Philippines, official social media presences are managed by staff members of the office in question as part of their regular duties. At the risk of WP:COI, I'll use this example: my grandmother is mayor of Gasan, Marinduque, and the various offices under her office have official Facebook accounts (e.g. her office, the municipal tourism office, the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, etc.). Those accounts are managed by employees of the municipality as part of their regularly-prescribed duties, and as such their contents are presumed to be in the public domain. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment: Unless I'm totally missing something, I don't think this can be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. No disrespect to anyone is intended, but this looks basically to be nothing more than a photo of a group of people standing in a room; so, a similar photo could almost be certainly taken by someone to serve that same encyclopedic purpose, and then uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license. For example, a photo like File:KKPK Katlung Misyun.jpg (assuming that's not a copyvio) also being used in the same section of the same article seems reasonable to create or find. In addition, given also the way this file is currently being used, it would also be hard to justify this as non-free per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.
The argument that this is PD made by Sky Harbor above, however, is interesting though and might actually be OK. I still think the provenance of the photo would need a bit more clarification to to eliminate any doubts about it. I'm not sure about c:COM:Phillippines, but not everything posted on an official US government website is, for example, automatically PD. US government websites do occasionally "use" content created by third-parties (not US government employees as part of these official duties) and these are not OK to license as {{PD-USGov}}. Whether the Philippines has similar provisions in its copyright law(s) is something I'm not sure about, but that would one concern that I think would need to be addressed before this could be moved to Commons. If there are any doubts as to whether this would survive a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be keeping it under such a license. If there's a chance that anyone in WP:PHILIPPINES could simply take their own similar photo and upload that to Commons, then that might be the best way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Marchjuly: there is. At Section 176.3 of the copyright law of the Philippines: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

According to {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, all works by the Philippines Government are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. Where is the "unless otherwise noted" part from? It's not in the law from what I can see. It is also complicated by the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with Commons that works by the Philippines Government are free, see {{Non-free Philippines government}}. Both our template and the one on Commons have survived two deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Henry Kulka images[edit]

Fourteen non-free files of buildings or interiors designed by architect Henry Kulka all uploaded by the same person and sourced to the Kulka Foundation currently being used throughout the article about Kulka. All the files are licensed as {{Non-free destroyed architecture}}. While it might be possible to justify the non-free use of a couple of photos representing Kulka's work, fourteen seems quite a bit excessive in terms of WP:NFCC#3a; moreover, there are also five images from Commons being used in the article which means (assuming their licensing is OK) that WP:FREER also comes into play and some of the non-free images might also not be needed for general illustrative purposes. All of the non-free use rationales provided for the files contain the statement "To illustrate the specific architectural points described in the paragraph to describe the specific, unique architectural structure described in the Henry Kulka Wikipedia text." or something similar which I think is something that needs to be closely examined to see if this is really the case per WP:NFC#CS and assess when omitting any of these files would actually be detrimental of the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. For example, seven non-free and three Commons images are being used in Henry Kulka#Work in New Zealand which seems quite excessive and also not really needed per WP:FREER.

In addition to the non-free use issues, there are also issues with the file syntax in that thumbnails are being fixed to a specific pixel size which is something that is not recommended at all per WP:THUMBSIZE as well as some MOS:SANDWICHing issues; these things, however, should be fairly easy to sort out once the non-free issues have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment So I did some basic research on the Villa Khuner photographs 1 2. Those images are commissioned by Henry Kulka for his 1931 publication Adolf Loos. Das Werk des Architekten and taken by Martin Gerlach,^[2] a photographer who died in 1944.^[3] I would argue given German / Austrian copyright law, those photographs are now public domain and the files should be updated to add Template:PD-URAA.
Overall I am admittedly hesitant to remove fair use photographs for buildings truly destroyed or otherwise permanently damaged, rendering the photographs possibly irreplaceable. Although that's not to say some of these photos shouldn't be removed. I just think deleting them all would be a bad idea. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]
- Thank you for trying to dig up more information on these. If some of them are PD, then that would mean they're no longer subject to WP:NFCC. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to simply preserve images just because they are rare or might otherwise be irreplaceable as explained in WP:IRREPLACEABLE; so, just keeping them for that reason regardless of whether their use complies with the NFCC is not really something we should be doing. If someone wants to preserve the images for posterity, they can download them and host them on some other platform. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  - Comment: Yes, thank you Elephanthunter. Based on what you say, it sounds like the files should be moved to Commons. I'd imagine there are additional knowledgeable folks there who can further evaluate the URAA claim if you are not certain. I'd be happy to move them over if you update the copyright tags. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep and move to commons as PD per above rationale. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment: Not excessive: The fourteen images are not an excessive number of images to illustrate the diverse and important architectural points in Kulkas work alongside descriptions in the Henry Kulka article. The not-free use exceptions and image numbers conform to the Wiki rules and Wiki exceptions rules. Each image has been chosen by a group of experts (academic) associated with the Kulka Foundation, a Registered charity to study and curate the works of Kulka. Each photo has been chosen by experts on Kulka to illustrate a unique category of information, whether 1) a period of work of Kulka with Adolf Loos, 2) relating to raumplan theory, or 3) an important typological variant, or 4) a new geography after forced exodus during world war 2 or 5) the separation between his European and South Pacific work or 6) the difference between his commercial structures or his private commissions.
The suggestion to remove these expertly chosen images from this site is inexpert, cavalier and would clearly be detrimental to enabling readers and scholars to get an aesthetic sense of interiors and exteriors that informing about specific aesthetic differences in time-place and in context. Taking these images off would be detrimental to the readers proper understanding of these differences and points in the evolution of works as physicalised ideas.
For example one editor above suggests that seven non free use photos are excessive for his work in NZ but Kulka’s predominant career was in NZ as the chief architect for Fletchers the country’s largest commercial building company and he separately ran a private practice - it is reasonable to have three or four images for each practice set. The initiating arguments hint at a dispassionate motivation behind the suggested removal and reclassification. ‘The Kulka Foundation’ refutes the approach to dissembling a thoughtfully published set of accompanying images.
Copyrights: All images uploaded under non-free use are those where Kulka, who died in 1970, through his Estate in NZ and Europe, still has a potent copyright interest either 1) by way of his financial commission, 2) his copyright in the architectural object-subject he created or co-created, or 3) by virtue of his 'direction of the taking of the image’ under the copyright laws at the time of image production by collaborating photographers. To move the images into Commons as some of the inexpert but no doubt well meaning editors ( indicating ‘ basic research was undertaken by them’) suggest above, would be a copyright violation under both Austrian and NZ copyright laws. The aforementioned comments and suggestions regarding the Khuner photos are an example of a route to copyright abuse because Kulka was a co-creator ‘of’ the Khuner structures themselves, and a director of the image notwithstanding its being taken by Gerlach, and Kulka a commissioner of their execution. The copyright is therefore Kulkas. The uploader has consulted copyright specialists qualified from the University of Oxford and can provide administrators with opinions and the statement of ownership of the owners of the copyright. The other images under non free use were permitted by the Kulka Estate, on the request of the Kulka Foundation. That Registered Charitable and Curatorial Foundation comprises a group of scholars in modernist architecture with specific knowledge about Kulka and his Czech, Austrian and South Pacific ouvre. Expert and professional legal intellectual property advice was sought by the uploader (representing the Foundation ) for each and every image - who commissioned it, who directed it, whose attribution of the object taken. Legal documentation and proofs were kept of such advice for each image and were shared with the Adminstrator. Please note, violations of the Kulkas Copyright found on the internet Commons do not make it safe for Wiki editors to use this violation as a modus/pretext to move the non-free use classification of the image to Commons, particularly after we submit this addendum fore warning. That would be a wilful wrong.
We request that the images be left, as they have been carefully published and categorised, to enrich the understanding of Kulkas’ work, which, being a building art, must be viewed as an image accompanying a description of attribution, provenance, typology, chronological order, geography and creative differentiation - which the article with the image selection does.
Note: We request that the administrators kindly remove the ‘files for discussion’ notices’ from each image please. --Wasuwatanabe 02:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Trim number of images Obviously, if any of these actually do turn out to be PD, then they should be moved to Commons and kept. But regardless of who the person is, WP has a non-free content policy with the goal to limit the amount of non-free image usage, including a per-page issue. Henry Kulka does not seem to have as many notability buildings like Frank Lloyd Wright (where these buildings would have their own pages and thus the images could be there), so we have to be much more selective as to what images are used. We need to go by what sources are available to give us critical commentary as to use only those images that best reflect those sources. (And to that end the article is drastially missing sources on much of its content which is not helpful here). For example the interior shot of the Harvey House is support in text via the "violin" comparison (with source) so that would be one to keep, but the next one down of the Meyer house has no discussion in the text and thus inappropriate to have. What the exact number is appropriate is hard to say, but based on how few seem supported by text, I think we're looking at 4-5 non-free at most, and that discounts what images are also PD that can be used. --Masem (t) 04:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References

^ https://www.discogs.com/release/3455501-Psyche-All-Things-Pass-Into-The-Night/image/SW1hZ2U6NjU3Mzg5OQ==
^ "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.
^ WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg[edit]

Non-free use in Shannon Miller which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, and in 1996 Summer Olympics which fails WP:NFCC#10c. I'm not seeing any sourced critical commentary in Shannon Miller#1996 is specifically about this imagery of the medal that justifies it's non-free use per WP:NFC#CS. More specifically, an image of the medal that Miller won at that Olympics doesn't really need to be seen for the reader to understand that she won the medal per WP:FREER, and the non-free use rationale's claim that image is needed to "illustrate a point in the article" is pretty by definition decorative non-free use. I can't see any way to justify the file's use in the Miller article and suggest that it be removed from that article.

The non-free use 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports actually makes more sense per WP:NFCC#8 since perhaps there's some sourced critical commentary about the medal's design could be found and added to that particular section and help justify it's non-free use; however, the file is currently without a non-free use rationale for that article which means it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. This could possibly be a keep if the file's use in the 1996 article can be better justified; otherwise, the file will most likely need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

It is a low resolution photo of the item. It doesn't lack contextual signifigance. If the article points out, in the lead, that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games, having a representation of what that looks like is helpful and in context. In addition, since the medals for each games are different, showing the ones for these particular games, such as in the 1996 Summer Olympics article, has value. Both of these are more than mere decoration. I expanded the rationale to reflect this. Clearly this low res picture doesn't degrade the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- If the medals are different for each Olympic Games and sourced critical commentary about the design of the medals for the 2016 games can be found and added to 1996 Summer Olympics and then a corresponding non-free use rationale added to the file's page, then it might be possible to justify the file's use in that particular article per WP:NFC#CS. A separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use per WP:NFCCE; otherwise, the file can be removed simply for not having one and there doesn't seem to be a way to write a valid rationale based upon how the file is currently in 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports. As for the use in the Miller article, I disagree that a non-free image of a single medal represents that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games. A visual representation of that is borderline decorative non-free use to begin with, but this isn't even a picture showing Miller with or wearing all of the medals she won. There have been quite a number of multiple gold medal winners over years at various Olympic games and such achievements can be more than sufficiently understood by readers of such articles without actually seeing images of the medals they won. So, the reader doesn't need to see a non-free picture of a gold medal to understand that Miller won any gold medals in 1996; moreover, there's nothing special about the design of this medal that's really contextually tied to Miller, at least nothing currently in Shannon Miller#1996 or anywhere else in the article, that would be hard for the reader to understand if they didn't see this particular image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  - I disagree that there needs to be critical commentary about design differences to be relevant to the depiction. Miller wasn't wearing them at the event. If you can find an image of her wearing them, that would be a good replacement. Until then, images of Miller and of the medal will have to fill that void. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Remove from Shannon Miller. The fact that she won a gold medal can be explained in text. There is no need to include an image of the medal.
The image currently fails WP:NFCC#10c in 1996 Summer Olympics. WP:NFCI §2 says that logos can be used for identification and for Olympic games I think that the same can be said about the mascot and maybe the medal. Is the medal always the same? If they only change the roman numeral, the city name and the year, then I think that the image runs afoul of WP:NFC#UUI §14. If, on the other hand, the image also changes, then it is maybe only WP:NFCC#10c which is violated in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- No, the medals aren't all the same. Any easy way to demonstarate that is..... by photos. Question: What makes this picture unacceptable but makes ones like this [6] ok? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which means there are way less restrictions placed upon how they may be used. The file being discussed here was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content and, therefore, its use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained in WP:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia. Please note that uploading a file to Commons doesn't automatically mean its licensing is OK because files are constantly being deleted from Commons for a variety of reasons; however, that's an issue that would need to be resolved on Commons. If you have a concerns involving the 1964 medals photo, you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC, but there could be a variety of reasons the photo might be OK, including the information found in c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and c:COM:Switzerland. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    - I didn't say I had a concern. I asked what the difference it. I'm actually trying to improve Wikipedia, but I'm starting to get tired of you talking to me like I'm an idiot. I have over 40,000 edits on English Wikipedia and have uploads at the commons as well. I'm asking how to do it better, so giving me some useless "things get deleted" wikilink as if I don't understand the basics borders on insulting. Clearly, you're not going to try to help see how we can retain the picture. Your interest in in deletion only. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      - I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid. You asked a question and I tried to answer. Since you're question involved an image on Commons, I just tried to point out that such things cannot be resolved here on English Wikipedia. Anyway, my apologies if the wording of my post or the links I added somehow seemed insulting because that was not my intent.
        I did explain my concerns about the file and what I think is needed to keep using it both the Miller and 1996 Summer Olympics articles. You seemed to disagree; so, there seemed to be no need to restate the reasons why I nominated the file for discussion.
        I am curious though as to why you think the same file uploaded to Commons under a different name is now your 100% "own work" and OK to release under a free license. Is there some reason for you to believe the engraving and design of the medal is not protected by copyright? Such things actually are often eligible for copyright protection per C:COM:CB#Jewelry and c:COM:CB#Engravings. So, unless you're actually the creator of the medal, then your photograph would seem to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights that need to be considered: the one for the photo and the one for the photographed item. Since the photograph entirely focuses on the medal, it would be hard to argue de minimis in this case, which means the copyright status of the medal needs to also be taken into account. I thought this was the reason why the file's licensing was converted by you to non-free per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 28#File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg.. If something has change since then and you can clarify what it is, then perhaps this FFD can be quickly resolved. The file uploaded to Wikipedia is now orphaned non-free use and will be deleted per WP:F5 if it remains as such. However, if the Commons file cannot be kept because of c:COM:DW, it will end up deleted as well. Maybe it would be better to re-add the non-free file to the articles where it was being used until any issues with the one you uploaded to Commons are resolved or this FFD is closed, whichever happens first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't magically think it's my own work etc. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. The focus may be on the medal, but the low resolution photo hardly diminishes the original copyright holders commercial opportunities. Nothing has changed from the conversion. I still believe all of those to be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - The fact that Miller won a gold medal is adequately conveyed with the text and does not need a non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg[edit]

I think that WP:NFC#cite note-3 only allows the use of image in the main infobox, not this extra image, as there is no critical discussion about the cover. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Many other Wikipedia pages for musical releases use additional covers that bear significance to the release in question. For example, the page for the song I Fought the Law includes additional infoboxes for covers that were done by the other artists, and have the associated images for said covers, but does not include an image in the main infobox for the page. User:PopDisaster182 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Stefan2, if I'm not mistaken, this is usually standard protocol for music Wikiprojects when the item in question is not notable enough for its own article, but is relevant to an existing one. Such an occurrence is usually rare, especially when the art differs this much. Only problem is, journalists would have a hard time trying to mention this in news items because their editor would most likely tell them "no shit, Sherlock" (nicer of course, but you get the idea). A more common example is in "deluxe editions" of albums where not only the cover art differs significantly, but there is new material. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- The way WP:NFC#cite note-3 is witten, I think that only one image is permitted. The situation with deluxe editions is clearer. It looks similar to the child and adult editions of the books about Harry Potter, where Wikipedia only uses the covers of the child edition, so I don't think that we should use both regular and deluxe edition covers of music albums.

If the WP:NFC guideline has diverted from music guidelines, then a discussion is needed somewhere, probably at WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I think there has to be one of these discussions somewhere but I'm not certain where it is. All I'm aware of is that this is usually considered normal, as far as I know. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

A WikiProject cannot decide to do something that supersedes a community-wide policy like the WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. If a WikiProject is providing guidance that isn't in accordance with a community-wide policy, it's up to the WikiProject to revise its guidance accordingly to comply with the policy or to get the policy changed. The best way to do the later is to start a discussion on the relevant policy's talk page. You might have a preliminary discussion on a WikiProject's talk page, but things will need to be ultimately sorted out on the policy's talk page. In the case of songs, it seems to be commons practice to put all of the cover versions of a song in the same article for encyclopedic reasons, even in cases where an individual cover might be WP:NSONG in its own right. In many cases, there are individual covers for each of these versions added to the article, but that doesn't necessarily make all of the additional covers NFCC compliant. I think that basically comes down to whether the assessment is that the cover art would be allowed if it were being used in an independent articles about notable cover version. I'm not sure how that applies due to the difference between "song" and "album". I guess the same reasoning could apply if the EP is deemed notable in its own right per WP:NALBUM, but in that case it might simply be better to create a separate article for the EP and then use WP:HATS to link the two articles together. Alternative cover versions used outside the main infobox are going to be harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and simply adding the file to a secondary infobox template isn't probably going to be deemed sufficient. Does the acoustic EP meet any of the criteria of NALBUM; if not, then it's going to be quite hard to justify the non-free use of its cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

WP:NFC#cite note-3 is just talking about a particular state of affairs that automatically satisfies WP:NFCC#8. But even if we don't think it applies here, taking a step back and looking at the #8 "contextual significance" criterion directly in this case, I think it's fair to say it's satisfied. i.e. omitting this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. I mean, the "Acoustic EP" section is basically just a little stub article embedded inside another article. If the image would be appropriate for the exact same content if it were simply moved to its own article, why would it not also be appropriate here? Colin M (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png[edit]

The file is a LucasFilm image of Star Wars Stormtrooper. As actors/cosplayers playing Stormtroopers wear the same indistinguishable costume/armour (apart from obvious derivative cosplays), it seems that cosplay images can perfectly replace the fair-use file. Given that we have ample cosplay images of Stormtroopers on Commons, it is doubted that whether WP:NFCC#1 is violated. The file is therefore nominated to be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I've also asked for further copyright advice on WP:MCQ#Star Wars Stormtrooper and File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png, but it seems that no response have been made.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep but overwrite with an image from official media because according to Fandom (which is listed as the source here, unacceptable) this image originates from http://www.anovos.com/collections/the-imperial-collection/products/star-wars-classic-trilogy-imperial-stormtrooper-pre-order (dead link) which was "awarded the STAR WARS™ high-end costume and high-end collectibles licenses" so the current image is no more valuable than a photo of a cosplayer wearing the same thing. 廣九直通車, according to Commons we have to use the separability test. While a large portion of the suit would be considered utilitarian, particularly the lower part of the helmet doesn't appear to be, containing many details without any function. It has been a source of debate for well over a decade on Commons though. @Clindberg: would you agree that at least the helmet is eligible for copyright protection? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- I believe a U.S. court ruled they were copyrightable (but it was a summary judgement, as the defendant did not show up) -- but they are not copyrightable in the UK, actually. See Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  - Do you know of a "real" ruling? The Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth article mentions a case in California where Lucasfilm won by default, i.e. the court never considered the question whether the costumes were copyrighted because the defendant never showed up in court. I don't think that a default ruling is suitable to determine if something is copyrighted or not.
  - For Commons, it is also necessary to determine the status in the source country. The French supreme court has ruled that furniture can be copyrighted and that photos of furniture can infringe the copyright of the furniture, so photos of costumes could be an issue in France. However, Wikipedia only looks at United States law and United States law exempts utilitarian objects from copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    - Presumably there was a valid copyright registration for Lucasfilm to file suit in the first place -- if they have one of those, then I believe copyrightability is prima facie assumed by the court. I think a defendant would have to disprove it during the case, and the defendant did not show up. I'm not sure they had a sculpture registration directly, though General Mills has a couple of 1978 registrations on derivative stormtrooper toys. Those mention the movie itself as the underlying work, so Lucasfilm may have been relying on the character copyright embodied in the movie in order to file suit, rather than a direct sculptural registration. The U.S. Copyright Office searchable records only start in 1978 though, so it's possible there was something earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      Clindberg, I can see why the "it's a sculpture!" argument would fall flat. It clearly isn't a sculpture, it's a functional helmet. It will protect you from rain and foes armed with paintball guns. I wouldn't count on it as a bike helmet, but that's not a requirement to be utilitarian. What would be interesting (assuming this isn't what happened) is if Ainsworth had used all the holes in the lower part of the helmet to turn it into a functional gas mask, respirator or diving helmet. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's possible (but I have no helmet to check) that the holes actually allow for air to circulate so the actors won't suffocate/overheat. If that assumption is true it would make this considerably harder to judge, I think. But until we know more, I think it's safest to assume non-free. Besides that, I'd really prefer to see a genuine depiction from the movies in this case. A cosplayer ultimately isn't a Stormtrooper. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      - @Alexis Jazz: The Copyright Office has generally said that Halloween masks would tend to fall outside of the "useful article" scope, and are often registrable. See here. From that, Although a mask alone is not considered a useful article, a legitimate question arises regarding registration practices in instances where a copyrightable mask is combined and sold as a unit with an otherwise uncopyrightable costume. In such circumstances, the Copyright Office will register the "work" on the basis of the copyrightable authorship in the mask. A helmet could be an interesting part of that -- the helmet portion can be utilitarian, but if the portion in the mask area is considered "separable" or not utilitarian, it could still be a problem. It's in the gray area, for sure. There is also the possibility there is a "character" copyright on the details of stormtroopers, and a costume could infringe that (but not sure we delete photos of cosplay on those grounds, if the costumes themselves are legal). And photos which are not focusing on the mask portion may be fine, as well, if the copyright is just on the mask, much like a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle -- only photos focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep non-free image but replace, per above - I uploaded this image in the first place because every cosplay image previously used in the article was systematically deleted from Commons as a copyright violation (see Costumes and cosplay). I'm sort of shocked that there are so many such images on Commons now, perhaps the community has begun taking a less aggressive stance? In any case, I was unaware this was not an official image, so if a non-free image remains then I agree with Alexis Jazz it should be replaced with an official one.— TAnthony^Talk 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
- Question @Alexis Jazz and TAnthony: Commons had a deletion case involving a image depicting a Spiderman cosplay (which of course is the kind of character where the costume covers the full body of the actor/cosplayer), and the file involved is later closed after lawyer's opinion is solicited. Do you think such safeguard on Commons is sufficient to ensure that related files on Commons won't be suddenly deleted?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  廣九直通車, that 2009 email from Godwin has been superseded by the 2011 email from WMF legal which was discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  - My fault for not noticing that advice has since been superseded by another one. Fine then, I'll withdraw my request for deletion, and will wait for the replacement. Thanks for all of your comments!廣九直通車 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't have access to the movies currently. TAnthony, can you supply an image from the movies? Or if you can find a suitable image at https://www.youtube.com/c/StarWars/videos I could take a screenshot. I found no great image in the trailers for the recent Star Wars movies on that channel but there's much more content there. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Regiment of Artillery logo.png[edit]

Almost certain these would all fall under the license of non-free symbol as copyrighted designs of the Pakistan Army and that they have just been mis-licensed. I however came across this file on Commons which threw some doubt into my mind. If the decision is that they are non-free then they should be removed from the List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Army articles. The few symbols that are used in the infobox of the specific military unit should be re-licensed and kept (namely File:Regiment of Artillery logo.png, File:Punjab Regiment logo.png, File:Armoured Core logo.png, File:Corps of AAD logo.png, File:Corps of Engineers logo.png, File:Army Ordinance Core logo.png and File:EME Core logo.png). Salavat (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg[edit]

Non-free image that is stated to be used for identification but is actually used at the bottom of the article. File:Starro.jpg is the fil in use for identification. The remocal of this image would not detract from the understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

weak keep it's the same character in a quite different (and quite popular) media. Seems quite relevant to the article and no reasonable amount of words is going to make the differences clear. This is "a picture is worth 1000 words" situation IMO. Weak because it's not clear all that is enough for using a non-free file... Hobit (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg[edit]

Non-free song sample which is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The song is mentioned in the article but none of the critical analysis claimed in the purpose is present in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Whpq's point was absolutely valid, however, having read through the article it was used in, it now meets WP:NFCC#8. Rain Forest (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Move file to Dumb Dumb (Somi song). WP:NFC#UUI#6 guides users to utilize non-free content in the article of the subject if it exists, which it does in this case. The critical commentary should be moved there as well. ✗plicit 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg[edit]

The US release lacks a picture sleeve, yet the US market share was larger than the rest of the world at the time. Yeah well, I'm summarizing what the uploader (the same who uploaded this image and the other image I previously nominated) said at the other FFD discussion. To put it another way, the American music industry has been very important. Out of huge single releases at the time, Americans received the single release using just a generic sleeve. The US release hasn't been distributed with a picture on the front cover.

I don't think a picture sleeve of an overseas release of "Love Train" by the O'Jays is necessary. The free image exists (File:Love train by o'jays US vinyl.png) and is concurrently used there. Furthermore, the song can be already well understood without a picture sleeve identifying singers (or band) who recorded the song or a song title. The (overseas, or German/Dutch) picture sleeve may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1. Moreover, the picture sleeve wasn't well identified without a caption. Whether enjoyment of the article or the song may be affected by deletion of the sleeve isn't part of NFCC. Understanding the song (or the single release) with or without the image is part of the NFCC.

Well, it's not like "I Need You (Eric Carmen song)", whose non-free lead image was kept by default. Rather I hope to compare this with "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing". This isn't the case of whether the song has more than one version. Instead, this is more about identifiable releases (of the same version of the song). George Ho (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Where are you getting information about the sleeve cover? It looks like you also changed Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing to say that it was artwork for the German single [7]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
45cat.com shows images of the Dutch and German releases, which contain the same picture sleeve. The US release lacks one. Even the German release of the Donny and Marie Osmond version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" has a picture sleeve, while the US release doesn't. I can show you images from discogs, a user-generated website, if you like. If you don't believe in 45cat or discogs, then I don't know how else to convince you. If only eBay listings show more images of the releases.... George Ho (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: Very surprised that neither 45Cat nor discogs (2 US entries) have one. I tend to believe them, even though they are "not WP:RS." Maybe, as US artists, the company assumed the American public would know better who they were buying? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If curious, you can look up sources discussing vinyl singles sleeves or use the Wikipedia Library. You'll learn history of releasing singles before CDs. George Ho (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the links. The first has "No preview available" for me. I'm not sure there is anything there which might answer the question here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:ZTE Orbit phone.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Well within the bounds of WP:NFCC#1. This is a defunct phone with defunct insecure OS from almost a decade ago, with batteries that are rated for 2-3 years. The chances of a new free equivalent being created is zero, and I don't see any existing free replacements. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete It is possible that the batteries no longer work, but most phones can get electricity by connecting a cable to the phone if you wish to run the software. Note that the software is unfree, but the photo still fails WP:FREER. Also, there is no software seen on the back of the phone. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Gojira - Ocean Planet.ogg[edit]

Non-free music sample claimed to be used for the purpose: "specifically discusses the themes Gojira evokes in its album From Mars to Sirius" but no such discussion about this song exists in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. At 33 seconds, also fails WP:NFCC#3b. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Whpq, I was just talking to the uploader about this. A fix may be in the works. I cannot say the same about the other sample you nominated. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

If the issue is addressed, then we can re-examine this but I would think that the From Mars to Sirius article would make much more sense as the place for such material and this sound sample if such critical analysis were to be added. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi. After a few hours of thinking, the file moves to the From Mars to Sirius article. I uploaded another version of the sample: 30 s, 55 kbps. Oroborvs (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - I suggested that the album would be the more natural place for the file and its accompanying sourced critical commentary. The image has been moved but there has been nothing about the song sample. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - The primary purpose of the non-free music sample was to illustrate the theme of the From Mars to Sirius album in Gojira's article, but I have no problem if it has been moved to the album page since its use on the latter is more relevant. Oroborvs (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg[edit]

Sample currently used in album article London Calling and song article The Guns of Brixton. The song "Guns of Brixton" is briefly mentioned in the album article. For usage in the album article, the sample is supposed to help readers understand what the album is about. However, the sample itself doesn't adequately help readers identify the album release, and critical commentary isn't substantial enough to justify using the sample. Furthermore, details about the song itself in the album article can be already understood (as part of the album release) without the sample. The usage may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1.

For usage in the song article, I'm unsure whether a sample of the song is necessary especially for identifying the song. Reading the article, a reader can already understand what the song is about without having to listen to sample. I just think there's not enough critical commentary to make the sample irreplaceable and necessary for further understanding or identification of the song. The usage may also fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1. George Ho (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Probably makes sense to delete from the album article, but keep for the song article. I added material about the music that is illustrated by the file, and plenty more material is available that can be added. Rlendog (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif[edit]

The NFCC#1 "not replaceable with free media" criteria is inaccurate. Even assuming that it's impossible or extraordinarily unlikely for any freely licensed game to have microtransactions, it would still be possible for someone to create a freely licensed representative example of lootbox opening. Such an example already exists at File:Video game loot box mockup.png and is included in the article Loot box. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm also going to add on that in the context of the article as it is right now, none of the elements specific to Overwatch are discussed in the context of this image. The description for the image as it is used in the article only remarks on general features of lootboxes that are present in the image, such as the items flying out of the lootbox, item rarity by colour, and the "final reveal". Two of those are demonstrated in the freely licensed image at the top of the article and a freely licensed "final reveal" could be easily mocked up. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep This was discussed last December with "no consensus" Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 8, and I think the same arguments still apply. The article discusses the specific nature of how certain parts of opening loot box animations (not necessarily those specific to Overwatch, but exemplified by Overwatch's animation) are used to draw in the gambling loop. While there are free ways to show how a loot box is opened, they do not capture the artist aspects that companies like Blizzard have spent to make the aspect of opening another loot box attractive (factors discussed in the article in depth). That animation aspect cannot easily be remade by free works. A free work can demonstrate the mechanic aspects of what a loot box does, but not the psychological factor which is what only is going to come from a commercial -- and therefore non-free -- example. --Masem (t) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Since the last FFD an example has been created at File:Video game loot box mockup.png, so the discussion has materially changed since then.

The argument you're making is basically equivalent to saying that no free equivalent of lootboxes can be created that is of the same quality of the Overwatch lootbox. This flies in the face of the spirit of WP:NFCC and a decade or so of consensus, which is that we can't use a non-free file solely because it would look better than a free equivalent. "Free replacements" are allowed to be substandard and of a significantly worse quality so long as they demonstrate the encyclopedic aspects of a non-free image.
And the necessity of the profit motive making something non-free is illogical. If I create a JimboBox app on my computer tomorrow that lets one collect rare Jimbo cards composed solely of freely licensed photos of User:Jimbo Wales and charge the user $5 for a box of four Jimbos, solely so I can screenshot a photo of that app and freely license it, would that change your opinion? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There's two aspects of a loot box image. One is the mechanical factors to show the box opening, dispensing loot (with different rarities) and all the flat-out gameplay stuff which absolutely can be 100% recreated with a free image. But the factor about loot boxes is the subtle psychological aspects of how this presentation has been tuned with fine details as to increase the anticipation level and draw the player into continuing the cycle - matters discussed in the article, and the type of stuff that is refined by commercial publishers (seeking to make a profit) to maximize that influence. Those elements simply can't be recreated with a free image because they represent time and money put into by the commercial company to get it just right. And that's the part that is important to capture from the OW loot box image and justified via NFC. --Masem (t) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're again, just reiterating the argument that since free images can never have the same quality as the commercial ones (which may or may not be true), that it's OK to include non-free content. This is an argument that has been rejected time and time again, with low quality free images used all the time in place of high quality images. It's also interesting that you claim that these "subtle psychological aspects" are "matters discussed in the article". I don't actually see any discussion outside of the caption of these "subtle psychological aspects" in the gif that aren't demonstrated by the free image that's currently present in the article. Just to diagram it, let's examine what's present in the non-free/free image and discussed in the "design" section as of this diff [8]:
Loot boxes are often given to players during play, by watching streams, or by buying them (free N non-free N; neither image shows how the lootbox is obtained)

Loot boxes can either be openable immediately or by using "keys" (free N non-free N; both images do not show keys)

Loot boxes have appealing visual effects (free Y non-free Y)

Loot boxes have appealing audio effects (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can be modelled off of slot machines or roulette wheels (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can show a prominent button prompting the player to buy more (free N non-free Y)

Loot boxes can contain items of differing rarity, sometimes denoted by colour (free Y non-free Y)

Loot boxes can have a mechanic that increases the odds of higher rarities the more cases are opened (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes may give items that can be traded or shown to other players via inventories (free N non-free N, no demonstration of that mechanic in the gif itself)

Loot boxes give items visible to other players via the course of a game (free N non-free N, neither image actually shows the game in which the items are being used)

Loot boxes can give items that the player already owns (free N non-free N, player's inventory is not shown in either image)

Loot boxes that give "duplicates" can have systems for the player to get rid of these duplicates, such as trading or converting into in-game currency (free N non-free N, neither image shows those systems in use)

Loot box systems can allow a player to use the aforementioned in-game currency to directly purchase items they don't have, circumventing the loot box (free N non-free N, neither image shows those systems)

Loot boxes can implement "gashapon" mechanics (free N non-free N)

Loot boxes can be "seasonal" and only available during a certain time (free N non-free N, Overwatch seasonal lootboxes not shown in the gif)

It appears to me as if the only aspect that this particular gif demonstrates over the free image that is included in the article is that this gif includes a button to go to the "shop". The rest of the details are only included in the caption and are unsourced commentary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete as the article does not discuss any visual elements specific to Overwatch, and discussions about the psychological factors are not related to the visual elements. The free image File:Video game loot box mockup.png is sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --Wcam (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete It's clear from Chess' analysis above that this image is replaceable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Etudes-Tableaux, Op. 39, No. 5.ogg[edit]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Etudes-Tableaux, Op. 39, No. 5.ogg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Paris logo[edit]

See WP:NFCC#8. While it might be appropriate to use the logo in the article about Paris (where it is currently not used), the logo shouldn't be used in the articles Council of Paris and List of mayors of Paris. Also, there shouldn't be two copies of the logo on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It is the logo of the City and of the council of Paris, so it should be used in both those articles (with appropriate non-free rationales.) Of course, the newer duplicate should be deleted. Rcsprinter123 (jive) 09:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- See WP:NFC#UUI §17. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I did not know that another version exists. Yes, there should be only one file. Both the council and the mayor are using this symbol instead of the coat of arms, so i think its appropriate. The infobox in Paris wont allow an additional file. --Andrei (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:BrazosValleywithRiverMap.jpg[edit]

Orphaned, low quality, superseded by File:BrazosValleyMap.jpg. ✗plicit 11:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:DJHSS 3.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP India, freedom of panorama does not extend to 2D works. Photos of this plaque cannot be released under a free license. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Cat 2 Olga 50 kts 989 mb 012310.jpg[edit]

Low quality, the source link is dead and the file is not used anywhere onwiki, no obvious use with current WPTC image standards. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg[edit]

Why is this tagged as non-free instead of {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2030}}? This was previously listed at FFD by Marchjuly (talk · contribs) in February this year, but the discussion was only about the copyright status in the source country whereas Wikipedia looks at the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

How I've been told is that works that are not free in their home country but are free in the US need NFURs anyway. I don't think that adding a {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} would disrupt or conflict with anything else listed. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If a file is free in the United States but not in the source country, then it is treated as a free file on English Wikipedia, but should be tagged with an appropriate template like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Photos of this statue have been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 14#File:Den lille havfru.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 17# File:Mermaid Statue Copy in Dallas Texas.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 1#File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 14# File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 10#File:The Little Mermaid en.jpg, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/January#File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg and its the last one which led to the most recent FFD at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 4#File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg. If an error was made and the file is currently incorrectly licensed as non-free, then it was certainly an error made in good faith. It appears this file is a different from the ones discussed prior to 2013 and it was never licensed as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It was tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} with this edit in 2015, but it remained under only a {{self}} license until earlier this year. Photos of the statue were uploaded and deleted a number of times over the years under different file names (File:Den lille havfru.jpg, File:Mermaid Statue Copy in Dallas Texas.jpg, File:The Little Mermaid Statue Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, and File:The Little Mermaid en.jpg) and people just probably never made the connection between them before until Stefan2 did here. Whether all the deleted files can be restored is unclear; if, however, the consensus is that this latest one need not be non-free, then the non-free license should be replaced per Stefan2 above. Finally, this is not really a discussion for this FFD per se, but there should be some way to better tie in discussions about essentially the same file under different file names so as to perhaps avoid things such as this. There's nothing like a {{Afdx}} template for FFD discussions and the talk pages of files that end deleted typically aren't tagged with {{Oldffdfull}}: even if they were, file talk pages almost always are deleted when a file is deleted. So, unless you've been involved in previous discussions about such a file or just happen to notice something odd, any re-uploads or a deleted file are likely going to go unnoticed for quite some time. So, if this file's licensing is changed as Stefan2 suggests, there should be something added to it's talk page which connects it to all of the previous discussions about previous photos of the statues for reference purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

At least one of the photos was deleted because there was no evidence of permission from the photographer. I think that the rest can be undeleted and tagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, unless there is reason to believe that there is no evidence of permission from the photographers. If you read The Little Mermaid (statue)#Copyright issues, you will find that the heirs suddenly dropped a claim for compensation in the United States. It doesn't say why the claim was dropped, so maybe they just tried to back off quietly after they discovered that the copyright already had expired in the United States.

Commons sorts many deletion requests into categories, so deletion requests for photos of this statue would normally be sorted into both c:Category:Undelete in 2030 and c:Category:Danish FOP cases/deleted, making them easy to find. It would be useful to have a way to also sort deletion requests on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:CHippendale plaque in Otley, where Thomas Chippendale was born.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use. As far as I'm aware, the plaque still exists, so someone could still go there and create a free replacement of this photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The image fails WP:NFCC#10a due to having an unspecific source. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've just replaced the image at the article Thomas Chippendale with a free one, File:Thomas Chippendale's blue plaque - geograph.org.uk - 1937847 (cropped).jpg. Ham II (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- Very nice. I spent some time searching for a replacement but did not manage to find one. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Srch9.jpg[edit]

The image is not on the linked web page.[9] No other source provided by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Party affiliations in the European Council (21 February 2009).png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Lacks explanation of what the colours mean. Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Structure-E-saxmeleto.gif[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Traxxas tmaxxs.jpg[edit]

See c:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png[edit]

See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Seems unrelated to the image listed as source. Unclear where the photo of the euro coin comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, ideally we could replace it with something since it's still used in a lot of places, mostly historical or archives. — 🦊 21:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:TimberJimVan.jpg[edit]

It says that the Image creator has given permission to use on the Wikipedia website. This sounds more like {{db-f3}} than public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Denver Basin Cross Sections.png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Nese 2018 cropped.png[edit]

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Male Bathroom Symbol.png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Expandable Water Toy.jpeg[edit]

See c:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:CSG Willem van Oranje.jpeg[edit]

Unused textlogo. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Katzsh.jpeg[edit]

Sourced to he:קובץ:Katzsh.jpg which is listed as non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Morphiceptin.png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Polke Spiderman.jpg[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one. Both are missing evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Body burden of lead fancient and modern humans compared.png[edit]

The source claims to be cc-by-nc-sa, not cc-by-sa. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:MGS sports hall interior.jpg[edit]

Although it says author donates, it doesn't say who the author is. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Trump's face, cropped from the public domain official portrait.png[edit]

Unused crop of File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:RPRhartaadminitial.png[edit]

Replaced by File:Administrative map of Romania, 1950-1952.svg. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC))[]

File:Ven Ho Yuen Hoe—Singapore.jpg[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by Aldwinteo (talk · contribs): This is a derivative work.
File uploaded by Marcuslim (talk · contribs): Delete per WP:F1. Dupe of File:VenHo.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Luis Alfredo Garavito (Apr. 23, 1999 mugshot).png[edit]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garavito-1999.png. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Ppl07-08.svg[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:The Salt Company Logo.png[edit]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to Draft:Salt Network which was deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Soviet Major General Tikhon Fyodorovich Yegoshin.jpg[edit]

Source ru:Файл:Егошин, Тихон Фёдорович.jpg is listed as non-free. The file information page references obsolete law. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Jansher Khan while in press confrence.jpg[edit]

The watermark suggests it comes from a TV programme or something. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:K-pop artists through history.jpg[edit]

Unused, unsourced. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Fabian Society coat of arms.jpg[edit]

Incomplete, unverifiable source. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Worcester Six memorial at Franklin Street Fire Station.jpg[edit]

See c:COM:FOP United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Maldives Visa Requirements Map April 2015.svg[edit]

Unused, all data is ^{[citation needed]}. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Los-angeles.jpg[edit]

Incomplete source. Impossible to verify public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Timothée Chalamet Wonka.jpg[edit]

potential copyright infringement, non-free image for non-encyclopedic purpose HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Song of the Korean People's Army, Instrumental Version.ogg[edit]

Music by Ra Kuk (라국/羅菊), no evidence of permission. Sound recording and performance of unknown provenance. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Betty Chancellor actress.jpg[edit]

Conflicting copyright information. Both cc-by and cc-by-nc-nd are mentioned on the file information page. No evidence of permission for either licence. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

You say there is no evidence of permission. But I see clearly: "Evidence: The license statement can be found online at:....." What more evidence can there be? I have an email from the National Portrait Gallery dated July 17 2019 which says: "You are welcome to upload this to Wikipedia under our free Creative Commoms BY-NC-ND licence: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw204576" It is signed Matthew Bailey, Rights & Images Manager. I do not begin to understand the complications of this. What can evidence consist of? Obviously not a piece of paper. This is annoying. Rory Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryjohnston (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- @Roryjohnston: You uploaded the file under a {{cc-by-4.0}} license. Can you provide a link which shows that the file has been released under that license? The link you provided above shows the file released under a cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 license, but this license is not accepted by Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia needs a license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to download this file at anytime and reuse for any purpose; so, any licenses that place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use aren't going to be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. This is what I believe Stefan2 meant by "no evidence of permission". Wikipedia needs something that specifically shows that the photo has been released under the licensed you uploaded it under. If you just made a good-faith mistake when uploading the file, then that's OK. Perhaps you just choose the license you thought was closest to "cc-by-nc-nd-3.0"? However, it's still a mistake that needs to be addressed. One possibility would be to discuss whether this can be converted to non-free content. Such a thing isn't always possible, but it might work here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - This image is likely still in copyright thought many NPG images now on the commons are actually in the public domain but claimed to be unfree by the NPG with a restrictive licence as this one has. It is a good candidate to convert to non-free in a reduced size. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    - The picture may well be out of copyright. It came from Bassano Ltd. so the photographer's name is not known. British copyright law does not allow for corporate authorship so since 1935 is more than 75 years therefore public domain. If it were non-free content would the thumbnail on my mother's page have to be smaller? I could look out an alternative picture.Roryjohnston (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      - Non-free content needs to comply with WP:NFCC#3b (WP:IMAGERES) and it seems that the currently file would thus need to be reduced. How much it will end up being reduced is unclear, but most of the time it is a bot that does the reducing. The standard image size for an infobox like {{Infobox person}} is touched upon at WP:IMAGESIZE and I imagine the bot reduces things partly based upon that; in other words, the bot will reduce image to default size considered OK for Wikipedia. Finally, you seemed to imply above that Chancellor is your mother and also stated as much on your user talk page. If that's the case, you should carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference. I've added some links about this to your user talk page, so please take the time to look them over because it might help you avoid problems moving forward. I'm not trying to say you've done anything wrong, but COI editing is an area where problems between editors can quickly develop; so, the more transparent you are about this, the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Omernos-new1.jpg[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one. Unused userphotos, no foreeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 11[edit]

File:SKY-Q-Logo.png[edit]

File has since been replaced by a free alternative on its article Sky Q. This being an old logo is also no longer used at the top inside the infobox for primary identification, i.e. no longer compliant with non-free content criteria. Jf81 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep. @Jf81:, these Sky logos should never be uploaded to Commons. They are PD-USonly in some cases but c:COM:TOO UK is a very low bar. I'm not sure if these are simple enough for the bar we have for PD-USonly, we generally put the bar a bit lower than the US Copyright office does. The US Copyright office would likely deem both File:SKY-Q-Logo.png and File:Sky Q - Logo 2020.svg as ineligible for copyright protection. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

But isn't Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia based in the US? It would be following US regulations only in that case. --Jf81 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jf81: Legally yes, but Commons policy (not law) requires files to be free in the source country. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

OK, thank you for clarifying. There are however numerous Sky logo files already on Commons. --Jf81 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Universal Animation Studios logo.png[edit]

Fan-made logo, no educational value. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Official crest of the Anglo-Chinese School with flames.jpg[edit]

Bogus PD reason. No evidence that the logo was made or first published in 1930. Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Veterans Museum and Memorial Center.jpg[edit]

Previously published in http://memory.loc.gov/master/afc/afc2001001/68664/pd0001.pdf. Despite extensive photo credits, the photo of the museum doesn't seem covered by the credits so the origins are unknown. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Limean Archbishop's Palace.jpg[edit]

Reading es:Wikipedia:Autorización para insertar material de PROMPERU con Copyright, I get the feeling that this only covers use by Wikipedia and/or on the web. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Screenshot of strange caption on "Man from U.N.C.L.E.".png[edit]

This Wikipedia screenshot includes File:The Man from U.N.C.L.E.jpg, which is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Samples at Loose (Nelly Furtado album)[edit]

Both were previously nominated individually but then were kept by default, the result of "no consensus". To this date, the samples are still used at Loose (Nelly Furtado album). They should've been removed from that article when the previous FFD discussion was closed (and another). Indeed, there was no support to keep the samples in the album article. Rather there was one support to keep/use them in their respective song articles, Promiscuous (song) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). The samples in the individual song articles may or may not meet WP:NFCC#8. However, I'm defaulting to decide that the samples may still fail the criterion in any way, so I'm hoping that a vote can give a rebuttal. Furthermore, telling from the previous individual FFD discussions, the samples may still fail WP:NFCC#8 at the Loose album article... unless fresher votes can prove me wrong. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC); expanded, 23:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:UnderneathItAll.ogg[edit]

Currently used in three articles: No Doubt, Rock Steady (album) (Featured Article), and Underneath It All (Good Article). I'm not confident that the sample meets WP:NFCC#8 in the band article and the album article. I'm also not confident that removing the sample would affect how readers learn about the band and the album. The sample may or may not the criterion in the song article. Let's then remove the sample from either two or all articles. George Ho (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Hey Baby (No Doubt song - sample).ogg[edit]

Currently used in Rock Steady (album) and Hey Baby (No Doubt song), both Featured Articles. Uncertain whether the sample meets WP:NFCC#8 when used in the song article. At least it's used in the "Composition" section rather than the introduction. However, I doubt that the sample meets the criterion when used in the album article, and I believe that the album can be already understood without any samples while reading the article. Of course, someone may disagree. George Ho (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:All The Small Things.ogg[edit]

Previously nominated; the result was "no consensus", leading to keeping the sample in both "All the Small Things" and "Punk rock" articles to this date. Actually, there were split votes to keep the sample in or remove it from the genre article. Well, the "keep" vote IMO didn't have much depth other than merely keeping it in both articles.

I thought the result should have been "kept in the song but removed from the genre". I still think there is one too many samples in the genre article (violating WP:NFCC#3a), which is soon to be (telling from votes at the FARC page) demoted/delisted from being Featured Article any longer. I believe that the sample may also fail WP:NFCC#8 (different criterion indeed) at the genre article. Recently, at the song article, I moved the sample down from the intro to the "Background" section for further context. Whether the sample meets WP:NFCC at the song article is still up for discussion. Maybe it does. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 12[edit]

File:Oxford Properties Logo.jpg[edit]

Orphaned; superseded by File:Oxford logo Standalone Twilight.svg. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:PACE Sports Management logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Orphaned; superseded by File:PACE Sports Management logo.png – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 03:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support per nom, but no need for this, I've G7ed it. --Muhandes (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Belle Gunness with children.jpg[edit]

Image is missing author and source. Copy on Commons was deleted due to missing licensing information. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Picture must have been taken prior to 1908, finding the original author is unlikely as it is a family portrait. A cropped version exist [10] on commons with info. Link to source of picture there is dead. Nidarista (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Bapu sign1.JPG[edit]

No indication whose signature this is. Low quality and not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Images at Somewhere Down the Crazy River[edit]

I recently replaced the JPEG version of a side-A label of the Canadian vinyl release of Somewhere Down the Crazy River with the PNG one. Then, to please everyone, including cover art enthusiasts, I uploaded the picture sleeve that was used in many, if not most, non-Canadian releases. I've been worried about whether using both images comply with WP:NFCC#3a. If it doesn't, then I guess one of them shall be kept.

The song was written and sung by Canadian musician Robbie Robertson but didn't perform well in Canadian charts. It performed better in Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK. It was also listed in one US rock chart. I figured that the Canadian vinyl would represent him, the song, and the Canadians well. However, I've not yet seen a Canadian single release use any picture sleeve but rather generic instead. If a cover art can represent the song better, then let's use the cover art. However, I also want the song to be more well represented by a release distributed to its home country. I'm still torn. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Friedrich Leibacher.jpg[edit]

Months ago the article about the perpetrator was merged into Zug massacre as WP:BIO1E has applied. Some other perpetrator images have been kept per other FFD discussions. However, I don't believe that the image may comply with WP:NFCC#8. The article is about the tragic event, and the event was already tragic enough. I don't see how the image improves the understanding or identifies the event. It identifies the perpetrator, but he is not the main subject of the already-merged article. George Ho (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Raj Kapoor signature.jpg[edit]

Unused "not fully free" image. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Satyamev Jayate Show Logo.jpg[edit]

India as a similar threshold of originality as the United States. However, the 3D effects likely put this logo above the ToO in the U.S. as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Ihonestlyloveyou.jpg[edit]

I uploaded the Australian single and then the UK single as intended replacements for this Yugoslavian picture sleeve, which I'm nominating here. Since WP:NFCC#3a applies, I would like either Australian and/or UK singles to take over and have the Yugoslavian release deleted instead. The song was sung by British-Australian singer Olivia Newton-John. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sources: 45cat and discogs. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:I Love You, I Honestly Love You by Olivia Newton-John Australian single.png[edit]

I uploaded this Australian single release to replace the Yugoslavian one. It's tagged as non-free, so I wonder whether the logo of "Interfusion" is eligible for US copyright. If so, does it meet WP:NFCC? Furthermore, I also uploaded the UK single as free to use in Commons. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 13[edit]

File:Lennon and Chapman.jpg[edit]

WP:NFCC#10c is not satisfied as there is not a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Additionally, the existing rationale does not address the purpose of use / criterion 8 (a necessary component). Use in the Lennon and Chapman articles isn't minimal, and the articles are easily understood without it (criterion 8). It may be debatable whether use in Murder of John Lennon could be policy-compliant if someone were to write an appropriate rationale addressing criterion 8; however, I don't think that it is. There is no sourced commentary in the article about the photo itself and what is written (that one was taken) can be easily understood without the photo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep: It hasn't been a problem before, so why is it a problem now? Also, the image is iconic as it's one of the last images of him alive. If you want it removed from the Murder of John Lennon page, I will gladly do that. Angelgreat (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Footer[edit]

Today is October 13 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 13 – (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 "===October 13===" 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.

[1] ttps://www.discogs.com/release/3455501-Psyche-All-Things-Pass-Into-The-Night/image/SW1hZ2U6NjU3Mzg5OQ==

[2] "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.

[3] WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates