Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	14	14
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	2	15	17
AfD	0	4	4

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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 September 20}}` 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 September 20}}` 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 September 20}}` 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.

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.

September 12

File:Gangster.jpg

[edit]

Orphaned user photo by a non-contributor. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 04:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

September 13[edit]

File:Rock and Roll is Dead.ogg[edit]

Sample not yet proven as improvement to understanding the "rocktronica" band Kings Have Long Arms. My main concern about its compliance with WP:NFCC is the sample's ability to be irreplaceable (#1) and contextually significant (#8), especially to the article about the band. I have doubts about the necessity of the sample, and the rest of the song not heard in the sample can be sought elsewhere. Furthermore, reading the whole article, I think readers would already grasp what the band is about without the sample. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - there is no sourced critical commentary about the song that this sample supports. In fact, there's no sourcing at all in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bibhuprasad Mohapatra.jpeg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mount Manipur Memorial.jpeg[edit]

Disputing fair use rationale. Per c:COM:FOP India, 3D architecture and sculptures have FOP and thus, a free version of this monument can be recreated. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the fact that the image is not freely licensed at its source website, it is uploaded in English Wikipedia locally and not at Wikimedia Commons globally. It's a recently designed illustration. The actual work (building) is yet to be built. So, there's no actual photographs available to replace the illustration as of now. Hence, fair use rationale isn't disputed. --Haoreima (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:NFCC1. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw it. Yes, there's no free equivalent image available. --Haoreima (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or could be created? The memorial still exists so a free image can still be created to depict it. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I have already said, The actual work (building) is yet to be built. There's no solid structure ready as of now. That's why graphic design is presented to the public by the designers in collaboration with the government. It's not even 1 month ago the design was released. --Haoreima (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:YoshinogariSagaJapan.png[edit]

Unused. Superseded by File:Yoshinogari_in_Saga_Prefecture_Ja.svg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Test image.jpg[edit]

Unused test image. Out of scope. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TEGG Service being performed on a motor control center. NFPA-70E compliant blast suits being worn.jpg[edit]

Unused, low-res, no obvious use. Bomb suit image available here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tanah Lot1.jpg[edit]

Unused, low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:Pura Tanah Lot. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SSN755crest.gif[edit]

Unused. Superseded by File:USS Miami (SSN-755) insignia.png. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Summer of 1909; Frank W. Benson.jpg[edit]

Unused. Superseded by File:Summer 1909 Frank Weston Benson.jpg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SPRgreenwall.jpg[edit]

Uploaded for Sam Park Revue. No other use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ski in 2005.JPG[edit]

Unused, low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:Ski resorts. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Thisistotalnonsense.jpg[edit]

Unused, low-res, no obvious use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Turanmap.JPG[edit]

Unused, low-res, no obvious use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AustralianEmbassyManila.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Erik A Williams1.jpg[edit]

Uploaded for Erik A Williams. No other use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mcd-serbia.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Replaceable with files at c:Category:McDonald's restaurants. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Molde3.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no obvious use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

September 14[edit]

File:Tart as a double entendre.png[edit]

In response to Special:Diff/1108845526 during the undeletion request, I'm opening an FfD for this file. I originally removed the image, along with the entire section pertaining to it, from the Penny Arcade article a while back, as the entire section was lacking secondary sourcing. That's been resolved, and the image was restored in order to be put back as well. However, I removed the image under a separate rationale: What this image represents is a piece of artwork that was subject to a cease and desist for copyright violation. That C&D was honored by the artist, so it never went to court. But it seems a strain of NFCC, which holds a goal of protecting Wikipedia from legal claims, for us to then rehost the content. Beyond that, I don't believe NFCC #8 is really met. This image is pertinent to a two paragraph controversy where it certainly holds context. However, it's omission will not be a detriment to a reader's understanding of the overarching topic, Penny Arcade. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Neutral~~ I will state that, to me, the issues are in some ways similar to the image used in Streisand effect (though in that case, at least, the image is free-use IIRC, the similarity being that a cease and desist was raised). In so far as that is concerned, there are numerous mirrors of this image on the internet (dozens were available immediately upon this comic being pulled), so any idea that Wikipedia would be any more open to litigation over the image than any other random webhost is a bit far-fetched I think. I do think ferret raises a reasonable fair-use concern, and I actually am not sure what the legal implications are. Hopefully others can fill in the gaps here, as with the comic being officially pulled, I wonder how that affects any argument of depriving the "owner" of their monopoly of the image and how that washes with our NFCC policy.
I do wonder if I were to contact Penny Arcade if they might release just this comic under CC-BY-SA since it is of historical interest and not being hosted by them. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep, my discussion with Whpq below has convinced me this image adds far more value to the reader than I initially realized. Legal concerns aren't really a good reason to delete an image, especially one that has been on the project for nearly 15 years. If there were a legal concern, Wikimedia would have done something via an office action, and could still do something that way if they were contacted in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Legal concerns aren't a good reason to delete an image? It's not just a concern. It's not even just a guideline. It's a policy: WP:COPYVIO, WP:NFCC. The second bullet of WP:NFCC makes it clear that limiting legal exposure is the goal of the overall policy. -- ferret (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Our use of the image qualifies as fair-use. If Wikimedia had a legal concern with this specific image they are more than capable of initiating an WP:OFFICEACTION and forcing removal. But there is no legal concern here that we are capable of adjudicating better than the lawyers that work for the project. I think raising the spectre of legal concerns is a red herring that should hold no weight when this discussion is closed. The image provides context for our readers that article prose alone do not, and IMO meets the NFCC requirements. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. Yhe particular controversy is a small part of the article, and the image is not really needed to understand that they were given a C&D over the use of copyrighted characters and chose not to fight it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it provides context to the reader as to why American Greetings may have felt compelled to issue the C&D more than the article text alone could properly convey. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the lack of an image is not any real impediment to understanding of what happened. Whpq (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, the current article text simply states they received a C&D for using two AG characters. The image leaves it to the reader to discern the BDSM undertones of the use Penny Arcade engaged in, which runs counter to the image AM sells for their products. These are things the article text can't really convey. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the article was about the C&D specifically, maybe you could claim that NFCC #8 is met. But no, this is two small paragraphs in a much larger topic. -- ferret (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article makes no mention of BDSM undertones as the reason why American Greetings issued the C&D, so the image actually isn't supporting anything in the article. Even if it did, I remain unconvinced this is needed to understand this topic, which is Penny Arcade, which is to say I more or less agree with ferret's reasoning above as well. Whpq (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whpq and Ferret: Quoting NFCC #8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. As the article does not go into detail on the BDSM undertones in article prose, the image provides context to our readers on what types of material Penny Arcade has produced, and in this specific instance, what prompted the C&D from AM. Without the image (without the context it provides) a reader is left uncertain about why Penny Arcade received a C&D or what about the strip was so disagreeable to prompt a legal threat. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that the nature of the strip was the reason for the legal action is pure, unadulterated WP:SYNTH. We are absolutely not in the business of framing ambiguous situations to seem more lurid like a clickbait site. Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree, which is why I said the image adds context for the reader since the article does not say that. A picture is worth a thousand words, etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that the article does not say it means that there is no context for the use of this image. Your argument is actually supporting the removal of the image. Whpq (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this opposite day or something? My argument does no such thing unless you misunderstand words. The context is the discussion of the C&D and the fact that it was from AM. The image provides the reader with a deeper understanding of the issue. I can't state it any more plainly than that. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I’m not seeing anything in the article that says “the C&D was because it looked like this”, just that there was a C&D; that makes keeping this image is more, not less confusing. It also illustrates a low-importance part of the comic and its history. If you were going to use a fair use image in the article it should be something that genuinely shows what the comic is about i.e. the main characters, an example panel etc. Dronebogus (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm really glad it only took us fifteen years to figure out this image doesn't belong here. So grateful. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of stuff escapes notice, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. Whpq (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cithare d'argent Silver Medal.jpg[edit]

No evidence medal design isn’t copyrighted. Dronebogus (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.png[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BillHybelsPhoto.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NickyGumbel.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Milo chapel carms.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Birhana2.JPG[edit]

Scanned image. Source needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BBC Queen Elizabeth II death announcement.webm[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May fail WP:NFCC #3b. A basically full-length upload of a non-free video from source video is not appropriate as fair use because it can interfere with BBC's commercial opportunity. It should be linked to the source video as external video instead, or if appropriate, cut down only to important parts. Also consider reviewing it if it fits under WP:NFCC#8. Stylez995 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment, Not to take any stance but I'm not sure if an external link to that video would considerably be acceptable per se. However, I understand that this is considerably important material with how this announcement was addressed to the masses when it was on television. 20chances (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from uploader In regards to "interfering with the BBC's commercial opportunity", the BBC (and in this instance more specifically, the News division) is publicly funded through the UK's TV Licence scheme. There are no commercial opportunities for the BBC bar the corporation's Studios division, which is not relevant in this case as that is separate from the News division.

In regards to NFCC#3b, I'd be happy to reupload the file with just the first portion of the video (i.e. just the announcement and no national anthem) if that would solve things.

And in regards to NFCC#8, and as per 20chances, I'd like to believe that it is of significance. It is estimated that at least 11.4 million people, 60% of the British viewing public, viewed the statement at the time of the Queen's death.[1]

I'd be happy to work and edit anything that allows the file to stay active :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this meets NFCC #8 or even #1. The first half of the video consists of Huw Edwards reading a statement from the royal family, the statement is reproduced in the article and the article says that Huw Edwards read it on air, so having a video of him reading it doesn't add much beyond that. And the second half of the video consists of the national anthem being played, which doesn't add much and could easily be replaced with a note saying that the national anthem was played. The video itself is not the subject of critical commentary in the article, or indeed any commentary beyond a note that Huw Edwards read out that statement. Hut 8.5 07:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from uploader Have submitted a Db-author request for the file as the article has been replaced with an external video link to the original YouTube video XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:3DMM screenshot.png[edit]

3D Movie Maker is now available under a free license. We should be able to create a free screenshot now. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground Historic Highway Marker.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for text/2D works in the US FASTILY 22:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a photo that I took with my phone camera. I don't understand why it should be deleted. 2nd ABG (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s a derivative work of the depicted text Dronebogus (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a public sign installed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to educate the public and bring attention to the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground. 2nd ABG (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is whether the content of the sign is copyrighted. The mere fact it's been erected in public, or to bring something to people's attention, doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. Content created by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources isn't automatically free of copyright (note the same text is found on their website here with a copyright notice). If the content of the sign is copyrighted then your picture is also copyrighted because it includes the sign. Hut 8.5 12:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you be deleting all of the images on Wikipedia that depict historic highway markers? The Wikipedia page of the Hebrew Cemetery that is right across the street from the Shockoe Hill African Burying ground has an image of their historic highway marker on it. Hebrew Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia)

I co-authored the text on the sign. I can contact VDHR directly concerning it. 2nd ABG (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have forwarded this discussion to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for their assistance. 2nd ABG (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sign itself does not indicate that it is copyrighted. https://www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=661702 The image of the sign has been used in numerous news articles. 2nd ABG (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright exists automatically unless you explicitly disclaim it, so the fact that the sign doesn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and it only accepts content which is available under the CC-BY-SA licence or is in the public domain. This is stricter than the law actually allows, which may well be why news organisations (which don't operate according to that standard) are able to use it. Or perhaps they just don't care, but that's not much of a reason to allow it here. If you want to get the copyright holder's permission to use it then you should read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, in particular note that a statement that the image can be used on Wikipedia or that it can be used for educational purposes is not enough. And there may be other images like this one which need to be deleted as well. Hut 8.5 18:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have written back to DHR and have asked that they complete your permission form and email it to the address provided. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Virginia Department of Historic Resources just sent an email to [email protected]. They stated that "The text of this marker is not copyrighted, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has no problem with this photo being used on Wikipedia." 2nd ABG (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The manager of the Historical Highway Marker Program at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources informed me that the content of the marker is not copyrighted, and said it is fine to use the photo on Wikipedia. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully you will receive written permission soon. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

September 15[edit]

File:Daufuskie Island, SC Resort Flag.jpg[edit]

Non-free image of a flag claimed to be used to identify some organisation. It is the flag of a resort which is not even mentioned in the article. The use of this flag is entirely decorative and even if the resort were mentioned, would still fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pirate's Cove, NC Resort Flag and Seal.gif[edit]

Non-free image of a flag claimed to be used to identify some organisation. It is the flag of a resort which is not even mentioned in the article. The use of this flag is entirely decorative and even if the resort were mentioned, would still fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 16[edit]

File:Brunei2.jpg[edit]

No source for base map. Better alternatives available. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added source for the picture Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Brunei3.jpg[edit]

No source for base map. Better alternatives available. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added source for the picture Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Campus Image of Midnapore College.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 since anyone can go to the college and take a picture. Muhandes (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Doda on the set of Nie Daj Sie.jpg[edit]

Higher resolution version could be found on another website prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Said website does not indicate a free license. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 17[edit]

File:Canadian Parliament illumination for the Queen.jpg[edit]

~~Appears to be the work of the Canadian government, which is not PD as far as I understand: https://twitter.com/senateca/status/1568037429721931776?s=46&t=5xfSlVia7LIBUthExTBCnw~~ Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 00:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not the same pictures. Peter Ormond 💬 05:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter Ormond You’re right, and thanks for pointing that out. But it does seem to be the same picture as the one posted by the Canadian government on Facebook at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0PoYvRCXCdNRoe4u56kfsABLgyWBsSTVqdzZeVb1FThuRicpiNDBTmqyicYZvjHk1l&id=100064694346427. It’s the same angle, same color sky, same time on the clock, the flag waving the same way, but dated 4 days earlier than yours and a slight difference in cropping. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 10:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's the case, then delete it. Actually I asked a friend to get me a free pic on my behalf; maybe he just fooled me. :( Peter Ormond 💬 10:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You asked a friend to find you a free image and then you licensed it as your own work? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 22:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peter Ormond: Am I to take it that you are not the photographer of this image? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Siege Perilous (Once Upon a Time).jpg[edit]

Not used educationally or critically, only used as ornamentation in an infobox. Fails WP:NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Will Smith dancing to "Gettin' Jiggy wit It".png[edit]

This non-free image is used to illustrate a minor item in the article on the slapping incident. The text already describes adequately what happened, and the image's removal would not really detract from a reader's understanding of the slapping incident. Fails WP:NFCC#1, and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Boney M. - Ma Baker (Remix '93 (1993 single).jpg[edit]

A cover art for one of original releases already suffices. I don't see how deleting a cover art of a 1993 remix of the original recording would affect the understanding of what can be already understood while reading the "Ma Baker" article. May fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Point and Figure Chart.jpg[edit]

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MultiVersus roster.jpg[edit]

Does not add educational value to the article: there's already a piece of non-free media that shows off the art style, so this is fluff and not discussed critically. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The title page is sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think the lineup of the roster is different than the cover art. The cover art also obscures everyone but Batman and Shaggy, so I think the lineup serves a purpose in displaying the characters. Soulbust (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 18[edit]

File:Kurt Cobain.jpg[edit]

Originally tagged as replaceable fair use and deleted, but the uploader contested this on the grounds that "the only other picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nirvana_around_1992_(cropped).jpg) is low res and doesnt even show his face properly. it is not suited as the primary visual identification". Listing here for community input, I am neutral on the matter. ✗plicit 07:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2. In addition, to there being a freely licensed image of Cobain available on Commons which makes this or any non-free one a problem per WP:FREER, there is also a problem with item of 7 WP:NFC#UUI. This file is sourced to this website, but that is unlikely the original source of the file. The image being used on consequence.net for that interview really looks to be a crop of this image (see also for which ownership is being claimed by a stock photo company Amana Images (ja:アマナ (企業)). Amami attributes the photo to someone named "Ed Sirrs" who appears to be a professional photographer who took lots of photos of Nirvana and other bands. Images from commercial photo agencies are pretty much never allowed per NFCC#2 (WP:F7) unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary, which doesn't appear to be the case here. So, there are issues with two non-free content use criteria and only one criterion need not be met for the file to be considered non-compliant with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and disclosure that I am the one that tagged it as replaceable fair use. It appears that the only free-use photo to use at Kurt Cobain is File:Nirvana around 1992 (cropped).jpg. Is it great? No, but it is good enough, and he is quite recognizable. Short of a professional photographer releasing a photo to the public domain, or someone petitioning the Cobain estate to release something, this is what we have. There are hurdles to what one can do for a long-dead rock icon's photographs. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as failing to meet WP:NFCC#2 as noted by Marchjuly. WP:NFCC#1 is debatable as the image quality for the free image is marginal for the purposes of visual identification, but that is not relevant for this image as it has failed satisfy at least one non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ESA 2009 coffee break.JPG[edit]

Contested PROD. Asserted to be copyrighted by "Per Rasmussen" per exif. Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Minorax: Have you even tried to contact Thore Husfeldt off-wiki? He was the local organization chair of the event from which this is a photo, suggesting it was likely taken at his direction as part of the event, and he is not difficult to find off-wiki, but I suspect he does not monitor his on-wiki account much. He may well know how to contact Rasmussen or have more details on why he thinks it was properly licensed. From your actions (nominating this for speedy deletion without telling anyone about it, leaving us to find out only after the speedy expired, and now nominating it for deletion again, after having been explicitly asked to notify article talk pages when you do, instead only leaving a notification on the uploader's talk page, and making zero attempt at being helpful in response to Husfeldt's request for help at his talk page) it would appear that you are much more interested in deleting stuff than in assuming good faith of long-past uploaders or in improving the encyclopedia by cleaning up its licensing of useful images without resorting to deleting them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Eppstein: Firstly, an uploader is obliged to make all sourcing/licensing as clear as possible. Next, I'm using twinkle to nominate files for deletion, be it {{di-no permission}}, {{PROD}} or {{FFD}}, so I assume that having to notify the uploader is enough. Lastly, I don't monitor talk pages and Husfeldt didn't ping me when replying to the automated message left on their talk page. And to keep everything in one place. Thore Husfeldt, possible for you to send in your permission or identify who Rasmussen is and get them to send in their permission to the volunteer response team? Thanks. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Minorax: There's a template {{deletable image-caption}} that can be added to files used in article when there's a caption to which it can be added, but it's not required to do so. It's also not required to add a notification to an article's talk page regarding images being nominated for speedy deletion or nominated for discussion here at FFD. It's a nice thing to do perhaps, but not required. So, asking someone to do so doesn't mean they have to do so. Having posted that, it might be a good idea for you (=Minorax) to keep in mind that (unlike when you prod an article) prodding a file for deletion often can go unnoticed until the image is actually deleted and it's syntax is removed from the article. Some WikiProjects keep track of files which are prodded or otherwise nominated for deletion that have the project's banner added to the file's talk page, but the majority don't. So, adding the same notification that you add to the uploader's user talk page to the article's talk page can often help avoid misunderstandings and claims that you're trying to pull a fast one by not properly notifying people. You not required to do so, but it can sometimes help avoid unnecessary drama. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, since you seem not to have read it the first time: Husfeldt is not difficult to find off-wiki. That might be a more effective way of contacting him than leaving messages on a web site that he has edited once in the last three months. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it should be necessary to contact someone outside of Wikipedia about something like this and I don't think others should be required to do so. Whatever upside there is to doing things like that doesn't seem (in my opinion) to outweigh the potential downside. If the uploader has posted their personal contact information somewhere on their user talk page and has stated it's OK to contact them outside of Wikipedia, then maybe that could be tried if someone wants to; otherwise, there's the potential for WP:OUTING, even if its unintentional and well-meaning. It also means that we'd be asking the person who tagged the file for deletion to reveal who they are to someone else outside of Wikipedia unless they've sent things up to contact others outside of Wikipedia in a way that allows them not to. Notifying the uploader on their user talk page is more than sufficient in my opinion. Even if the uploader doesn't see the notification until after the file in question has been deleted (regardless of how), there are ways for it to be restored if it turns out the uploader has something to add that would've allowed the file to be kept when originally discussed. FWIW, I don't think Minorax did anything improper ~~and they followed accepted practice~~ or acted in bad faith; they followed accepted practice when it comes to tagging~~prodding~~ a file~~stuff~~ for deletion. If some members of the community feel more needs effort needs to be made when it comes to notifying others about files being nominated for deletion, then that should be discussed at WT:FFD, WT:PROD or some other page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for clarification purposes. -- 12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

On the contrary, I think that if we want to make this process useful, and not merely a bureaucratic trap to flush out old uploads merely for being old, we should make an effort to contact people who might have contributed years ago and then moved on. Leaving a note on a talk page is likely to fail at doing that, and act as a formality rather than a useful exercise. If you want to clarify what they meant, the only way to do that is to ask them. If you want them to have read your mind from 12 years ago into the future, and already answered the questions you now want clarification for, so that no need for contact is ever necessary, then you are setting up impossibilities as a way to force the process to fail rather than trying to be constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Eppstein: Like Marchjuly said, I did my part by notifying the uploader. Considering how scary the internet is, I have no plans on revealing who I am to random Wikipedians and will still hesitate if that Wikipedian is a steward/admin/someone who is highly trusted. As stated at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Deleting_images, point 1. states consider contacting and point 5. states give proper notification. I considered contacting the uploader by giving them a notification (albeit being an automated one) so I did my part as required. Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge my mistake as stated in point 3. which is to list this at FFD instead of just tagging it as no permission. I respect your choice of siding the uploader on this and I would like you to respect mine for not contacting the uploader personally. If you think a {{di-no permission}} or {{di-no source}} tag doesn't get enough attention, considering making an RFC to abolish these procedures and redirect it to FFD. Thanks. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The uploader wrote on his talk page "I created this picture/file". Minorax chose to ignore that response, fail to answer it, assume bad faith of a respected computer science researcher (who happens to have been the organizer of the 2009 event the photo is from), and escalate the deletion attempts, all because of a mismarked piece of copyright data on an old upload. It is difficult to understand how this sort of behavior could in any way be seen as an improvement to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but it would be probably a good idea for the uploader to email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT. Having copyright authorship verified by VRT will make it clear that file is OK as licensed and will avoid something like this from happening in the future. Asking such a thing doesn't seem to be too big of a burden to place on the uploader/copyright holder. This file also probably doesn't need to kept as a local file for use only on English Wikipedia and should be moved to Commons once it's licensing has been verified. Commons will have no problems hosting this with VRT verification and it could possibly then be used by other language Wikipedia's or WMF projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AlberguinnGreenRoom.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. No indication whether Cedric Anderson is the uploader as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Platform Side2e.JPG[edit]

Orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. House Blaster^talk 23:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 19[edit]

File:Rhodesia ten shillings 1968.jpg[edit]

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rhodesia one pound 1968.jpg[edit]

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rhodesia five pounds 1966.jpg[edit]

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UDI signing.jpg[edit]

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cape-lefkada-sideris.jpg[edit]

Permission from "Laki Sideris" needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AR Rahman and MU Glee Club Student Conductor.jpg[edit]

Exif date doesn't match what's stated in {{Information}}. Permission needed from "Corbin Mathias" as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Conf Entry.JPG[edit]

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Huddle Space.JPG[edit]

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Open Office Entry.JPG[edit]

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Novus Int. Lobby.JPG[edit]

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Car photo.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gig photo.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Scotland photo.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blinka.png[edit]

The contents of the .license files in the repository suggest this image is available under the CC-BY-4.0 license. [2] Also, there is a superior SVG version available. [3] Ixfd64 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Untitled, from Ed Clark's "Taos series" (1981); dry pigment on paper.jpg[edit]

Photograph of 2D artwork, author lived in US, died in 2019. Not PD until 2019+70=2089; derivative of non-free content. Can't be converted to fair use either, as it would fail WP:NFCC#8; the file is currently being used decoratively, there is no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious use in the article Edward Clark (artist) besides decoration. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 20[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is September 20 2022. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 20 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===September 20===" 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

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

What not to list here[edit]

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Old discussions[edit]

September 12

File:Gangster.jpg

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

September 13[edit]

File:Rock and Roll is Dead.ogg[edit]

File:Bibhuprasad Mohapatra.jpeg[edit]

File:Mount Manipur Memorial.jpeg[edit]

File:YoshinogariSagaJapan.png[edit]

File:Test image.jpg[edit]

File:TEGG Service being performed on a motor control center. NFPA-70E compliant blast suits being worn.jpg[edit]

File:Tanah Lot1.jpg[edit]

File:SSN755crest.gif[edit]

File:Summer of 1909; Frank W. Benson.jpg[edit]

File:SPRgreenwall.jpg[edit]

File:Ski in 2005.JPG[edit]

File:Thisistotalnonsense.jpg[edit]

File:Turanmap.JPG[edit]

File:AustralianEmbassyManila.jpg[edit]

File:Erik A Williams1.jpg[edit]

File:Mcd-serbia.jpg[edit]

File:Molde3.jpg[edit]

Recent nominations[edit]

September 14[edit]

File:Tart as a double entendre.png[edit]

File:Cithare d'argent Silver Medal.jpg[edit]

File:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.png[edit]

File:BillHybelsPhoto.jpg[edit]

File:NickyGumbel.jpg[edit]

File:Milo chapel carms.jpg[edit]

File:Birhana2.JPG[edit]

File:BBC Queen Elizabeth II death announcement.webm[edit]

File:3DMM screenshot.png[edit]

File:Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground Historic Highway Marker.jpg[edit]

September 15[edit]

File:Daufuskie Island, SC Resort Flag.jpg[edit]

File:Pirate's Cove, NC Resort Flag and Seal.gif[edit]

September 16[edit]

File:Brunei2.jpg[edit]

File:Brunei3.jpg[edit]

File:Campus Image of Midnapore College.jpg[edit]

File:Doda on the set of Nie Daj Sie.jpg[edit]

September 17[edit]

File:Canadian Parliament illumination for the Queen.jpg[edit]

File:Siege Perilous (Once Upon a Time).jpg[edit]

File:Will Smith dancing to "Gettin' Jiggy wit It".png[edit]

File:Boney M. - Ma Baker (Remix '93 (1993 single).jpg[edit]

File:Point and Figure Chart.jpg[edit]

File:MultiVersus roster.jpg[edit]

September 18[edit]

File:Kurt Cobain.jpg[edit]

File:ESA 2009 coffee break.JPG[edit]

File:AlberguinnGreenRoom.jpg[edit]

File:Platform Side2e.JPG[edit]

September 19[edit]

File:Rhodesia ten shillings 1968.jpg[edit]

File:Rhodesia one pound 1968.jpg[edit]

File:Rhodesia five pounds 1966.jpg[edit]

File:UDI signing.jpg[edit]

File:Cape-lefkada-sideris.jpg[edit]

File:AR Rahman and MU Glee Club Student Conductor.jpg[edit]

File:Conf Entry.JPG[edit]

File:Huddle Space.JPG[edit]

File:Open Office Entry.JPG[edit]

File:Novus Int. Lobby.JPG[edit]

File:Car photo.jpg[edit]

File:Gig photo.jpg[edit]

File:Scotland photo.jpg[edit]

File:Blinka.png[edit]

File:Untitled, from Ed Clark's "Taos series" (1981); dry pigment on paper.jpg[edit]

September 20[edit]

Footer[edit]

Navigation menu

Search