Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	8	157	165
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	2	26	28
AfD	0	80	80

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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2022 June 1}}` 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=2022 June 1}}` 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=2022 June 1}}` 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 1929, not 1923.
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]

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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.

May 21

File:The Badge of PLANS Shandong 17.jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image exists that serves as a more direct means of visual identification to the article subject. No need to use a non-free symbol. Wcam (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the licensing of File:The Badge of PLANS Liaoning 16.png correct? If so, this file would seemingly be free as well. ✗plicit 00:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

File:Goldy Goldstein.jpg

[edit]

commons:File:Goldy Goldstein.jpg does exist and appears to be on the same subject, which would make the local image fail WP:NFCC#1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the provenance of this photo is unclear. The given source is photobucket which is just an image upload site. Stated to be circa 1925 so it might be public domain but without proper source information, the licensing cant be determined. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, If you'll look at when he played football, his time playing football ended in 1926; a quick search of copyrights finds nothing to match either. The original photo is clearly PD. Merely colorizing one portion of it doesn't make it lose that status. Buffs (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is based on date of publicationwhich we don't know. -- Whpq (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the copyright status of film colorization and hand colouring is always so clear per c:COM:Colorization. In some cases, there might be an element of creativity involved that could be considered sufficient to establish a separate copyright for the colorized version. In that case, the date of first publication of the colorized could matter. It's not so much a question as to whether the original photo loses its PD status through colorization because it can't. It's more of a question as to whether the colorized version is creative enough to generate a new copyright independent of the original. In this case, it would probably be better to find either an original non-colorized version of the photo and use that if it can be demonstrated it was first published prior to January 1, 1927, since colorization doesn't add much encylopedic context and there're other images already on Commons that can be used for identification purposes. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no element of creativity on this one for colorization. But more importantly, this was a publicity photo for the Florida Gators. There is little doubt it was published before he left school in 1926. As for date of publication, I'm well aware. The fact is I can find no record of a registered copyright for this subject, ergo, such a photo would have had to be registered for copyright during that era. As no known copyright exists, it's PD. Buffs (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, how do you know it was a publicity photo? I'm not terribly worried about copyright here, but how can we know his pants aren't the only fishy thing here? Regardless, I've desaturated the image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stadium in the background is pretty much a dead giveaway. You don't just walk onto the UF field and take pictures (well, certainly not in that day/age). It is ver reminiscent of individual/team photos of that era and, for the most part, only professionals had the gear to take such photos. I like the desaturation changes too. As I stated above, if that photo was to retain copyright, it had to be registered AND they had to pay to maintain that registry. I could find neither in a records check, ergo, it is PD by that standard (not just that it's pre-1927). Buffs (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, my concerns are more like "did they photoshop some modern pants on this guy?", "could it be a face swap?", "has the photo been mirrored?", "how can we know the guy was IDed correctly?", etc. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be that. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Buffs (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On balance, it is far more likely than not that the image is pre-1927 and therefore its copyright is expired. Should be retagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

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

May 25[edit]

File:Mariah TEOM Digipak-Vinyl.png[edit]

Image is secondary non-free image use in the inbox for some alternative releases of the album, and that to for digipak/vinyl editions which are likely to have sold less than mainstream copies. Additionally per WP:NFCC minimality is failed as is minimal use and low/moderate quality. The inclusion of this second cover art adds nothing to the article and its omission is not detrimental to the topic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usha Kiran.png[edit]

I'm pretty sure the background puts this image above the threshold of originality. That being the case, I don't believe it qualifies for fair use either. From what I could tell, the copyrighted background appears to be specific to a movie while the actual logo appears to be a simple wordmark (albeit with non-English characters) that could be easily recreated. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file that fails fair use requirements for use in Usha Kiran Movies. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

May 26[edit]

File:DUNKIRK1940.jpg[edit]

There are other equivalen, free use images of the Dunkirk evacuation e.g. File:Dunkirksoldier1.JPG, File:Dunkirk 26-29 May 1940 NYP68075.jpg, File:Wounded British soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk make their way up the gangplank from a destroyer at Dover, 31 May 1940. H1623.jpg. As such, this non free image fails WP:NFCC#1 Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NFCC#1. House Blaster^talk 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kids exercising.jpeg[edit]

Likely Flickrwashed image, taken from https://golocalgeorgesriver.com.au/listings/rugbytots-georges-river-the-shire/ Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:GOT-5x09-HarpyAttack.jpeg[edit]

This non-free screenshot is being used to "visually represent the episode in a way words cannot, by demonstrating an aesthetically or narratively significant moment.", but the image is not actually the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary. It's use is decorative and its removal is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captain Price MWII.png[edit]

New high definition image uploaded for use on Captain Price. I believe this image would fail 3.a and 8, as the older image from a previous game suffices and this version of the character is not sufficiently different nor will the reader gain any understanding of the subject from it's inclusion. Once downsized, the image will show even less difference with the older image. -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how these images violate either 3.a or 8. The reboot version of the character is entirely different from the original, even taking into consideration minor plot details that were briefly mentioned. 404Violet (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the plots and how the character's differ in the story is irrelevant. The character's imagery is clearly near identical, down to same hair cuts, same eye colors, facial hair, hat, etc. Additionally, the images are low quality crops from marketing materials, with various overlays, maps and other artifacts included. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The difference is not significant enough to merit the use of two images to depict the character. This new image also shows less of his body. The original image could even be increased in size a bit while still not breaking Wikipedia policy for size. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soap MacTavish MWII.png[edit]

New high definition image uploaded for use on Soap MacTavish. I believe this image would fail 3.a and 8, as the older image from a previous game suffices and this version of the character is not sufficiently different nor will the reader gain any understanding of the subject from it's inclusion. Once downsized, the image will show even less difference with the older image. -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how these images violate either 3.a or 8. The reboot version of the character is entirely different from the original, even taking into consideration minor plot details that were briefly mentioned. 404Violet (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the plots and how the character's differ in the story is irrelevant. The character's imagery is clearly near identical, down to same hair cuts, same eye colors, facial hair, etc. Additionally, the images are low quality crops from marketing materials, with various overlays, maps and other artifacts included. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The difference is not significant enough to merit the use of two images to depict the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghost MWII.png[edit]

New high definition image uploaded for use on Ghost (Call of Duty). I believe this image would fail 3.a and 8, as the older image from a previous game suffices and this version of the character is not sufficiently different nor will the reader gain any understanding of the subject from it's inclusion. Once downsized, the image will show even less difference with the older image. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how these images violate either 3.a or 8. The reboot version of the character is entirely different from the original. This character in particular especially should not violate 8 because Ghost's character design in the reboot is radically altered from his original appearance. 404Violet (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the plots and how the character's differ in the story is irrelevant. The character's imagery is clearly near identical, primarily in this case the "signature" balaclava. Additionally, the images are low quality crops from marketing materials, with various overlays, maps and other artifacts included. -- ferret (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article got redirected, it is an orphaned fair-use image. And I agree that the article was not sufficiently improved enough to demonstrate standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#7. House Blaster^talk 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:NJI Fantasy Currency.jpg[edit]

Image of a fantasy currency from 2012 without evidence of an appropriate license. Not the subject of commentary in an article to warrant fair-use. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated the file for speedy deletion as it lacks a source/license per WP:F4. If one is provided, I would be happy to revisit this. House Blaster^talk 15:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kemosabe Records Logo.jpg[edit]

Unused logo above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free logo and redundant to File:Kemosabe Record Logo.png. Salavat (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

File:Logompkj.png[edit]

Unused logo above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mislabelled non-free file so I have relicensed to non-free logo, added a fairuse and added to the article Kajang Municipal Council. Salavat (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 28[edit]

File:Unlucky Winner Is OFAH.jpg[edit]

This non-free image is decoratively used in the infobox for a TV episode with a stated purpose of "Header image". Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gould-bwv846-prelude.ogg[edit]

Previously nominated as part of mass-nomination on Glenn Gould recording samples, which was closed as "no action" and unclear. To play it safe, I'm re-nominating only this sample for now. I still don't think (quoting from the file talk page) his specializing in repertoire by playing the famous arpeggiated chords staccato rather than legato like most pianists would absolve the sample's potential issues with "contextual significance" criterion and "minimal number of items" criterion. Furthermore, I don't see sufficient commentary on what is heard in question and why deleting this sample would hamper readers' understanding of Gould as a pianist. Furthermore, Gould wrote his own works, so maybe we can sample one or two of his own works to help readers understanding him as a composer. Moreover, using more than two samples is still excessive to me, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 29[edit]

File:Northern Group of Forces.jpg[edit]

The file is an image showing Soviet officials inspecting soldiers from the Northern Group of Forces, in which the uploader only stated "to illustrate the military formation in question" as the sole rationale.

However, the file provided no information on the formation and organization of the troops (for example, an order of battle made from openly-available sources are more useful in conveying such information.), and otherwise, the file functions as a replaceable graphic illustration to the article. It's therefore doubted whether the file's inclusion will significantly increase readers' understanding on the article. The file violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It illustrates the concept of soldiers, which is a different type of message than an order of battle infographic would be. It can only be replaced by a free image showing the troops. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to Russian copyright laws, it is almost impossible to find free images of Soviet troops during this period. This image is practically not replaceable by a free image for that reason. Kges1901 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misunderstood "formation" as "formation and organization of the group", but what makes images of Soviet soldiers in Poland important to the understanding towards the article? The image only highlights soldiers from the Northern Group. Without proper enquiry one won't even know they are from the Northern Group garrisoned in Poland (rather than some random Soviet soldiers).

This case is somehow similar to a previous FFD request for the AP Tank Man image, in which it is decided that any other usage on June Fourth Incident-related pages (except the Tank Man page, which is central and irreplacable to the topic) are deleted for NFCC8. Both images are side-note illustrations to the topics described that are not central to the main topic (Tank Man in illustrating military actions and bloodshed in the June Fourth Incident, and this nominated image in illustrating the Northern Group in general). Unless this nominated image is itself a topic described in its article (clearly not this case), or used to illustrate a historical moment, then I consider the file did fail the requirement of NFCC8.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, RIA Novosti holds a considerable amount of Soviet-era images on Commons, so perhaps one may try to dive into their collections to find if there are suitable images?廣九直通車 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clean Bandit New Eyes Special Edition cover.jpg[edit]

Not substantially different to the primary cover art - this is for the re-release and therefore fails WP:NFCC on minimality. No reader understanding is lost by its omission. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rego with Zail Singh.jpg[edit]

Seems to be a photograph of a photograph. Needs evidence of original photographer's permission unless it can be shown that the original photo is in public domain. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 30[edit]

File:The O2 (London) logo.svg[edit]

Support deletion - dePROD'd as "this is not the O2 logo, but the O2 Arena logo." However, the source for this file is a dead link, and the archived link does not contain a copy of this image—I was unable to find this version of the logo anywhere online. This image is orphaned and redundant to this image of the actual O₂ arena logo. House Blaster^talk 18:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Seal of Klang Municipal Council.jpg[edit]

Unused logo above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mislabelled non-free file so I have relicensed to non-free symbol, added a fairuse and added to the article Klang Municipal Council. Salavat (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 31[edit]

File:Ship badge of Chinese landing helicopter dock Hainan.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image exists that serves as a more direct means of visual identification to the article subject. No need to use a non-free symbol. Belarus101 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~The purported free image is heavily unlikely to be own work, as a reverse image search shows many, many copies on the internet. Seloloving (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

The uploader has acknowledged that the rendering is their own work, so this logo may be deleted. I have substituted it with the rendering on the mainpage. Seloloving (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:George-Shapiro-Friedman.jpg[edit]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with george shapiro Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCCA.JPG[edit]

The version of the logo found on the alleged official website of the group does not contain the "OCCA" below the cross-and-crosslets.
What do you think should be done? Veverve (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whitelogo.png[edit]

For some reason it reads "Retina Studios LLC", which is of no relation to the radio station this was used on. A bit baffled. Replaced in article with a current logo. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thiruman.jpg[edit]

Unused logos above the threshold of originality. No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. The purpose of this image is also unclear. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 1[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is June 1 2022. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 June 1 – (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 "===June 1===" 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.

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 Holidays 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