Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FFD
XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 16 41 57
TfD 0 0 2 2 4
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 2 4 6 12
AfD 0 0 0 75 75

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{ db-f9}}.
  6. 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}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{ db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ Ffd|log=2021 September 18}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{ subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{ subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{ Ffd|log=2021 September 18}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{ subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{ subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2021 September 18}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1928, not 1922.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{ PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

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

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation

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:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

September 6

File:Gojira - Ocean Planet.ogg

[ ]

File:Gojira - Ocean Planet.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oroborvs ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • Whpq, I was just talking to the uploader about this. A fix may be in the works. I cannot say the same about the other sample you nominated. dannymusiceditor oops 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If the issue is addressed, then we can re-examine this but I would think that the From Mars to Sirius article would make much more sense as the place for such material and this sound sample if such critical analysis were to be added. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. After a few hours of thinking, the file moves to the From Mars to Sirius article. I uploaded another version of the sample: 30 s, 55 kbps. Oroborvs ( talk) 14:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggested that the album would be the more natural place for the file and its accompanying sourced critical commentary. The image has been moved but there has been nothing about the song sample. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

File:ZTE Orbit phone.jpg

[ ]

File:ZTE Orbit phone.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • Keep Well within the bounds of WP:NFCC#1. This is a defunct phone with defunct insecure OS from almost a decade ago, with batteries that are rated for 2-3 years. The chances of a new free equivalent being created is zero, and I don't see any existing free replacements. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

File:In the Bleak Midwinter (Harold Darke) - excerpt.ogg

[ ]

File:In the Bleak Midwinter (Harold Darke) - excerpt.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cnbrb ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Like commons file, File:In the bleak midwinter (Harold Darke).ogg, this work is copyrighted in the UK and there is no fair use rationale. The musical content does not require an audio sample and it is not discussed sufficiently in the article it is being used in. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep The file is indeed copyrighted, which is why it is a 29-second extract, in line with WP:NFCCEG:
"Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." Whether this is "discussed sufficiently in the article" is a subjective point - there is a 150-word paragraph discussing Darke's arrangement If this is insufficient depth, the answer would be to improve the article, not delete the file.
There is a Fair Use Rationale for this article - it is provided by the template {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. If you would like this information to be duplicated in a separate {{Non-free use rationale}} template, then I am happy to do this.
The musical content does require an audio sample as this supports the reader's understanding of the differences between the two settings.
Cnbrb ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg

[ ]

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

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

  • Keep Where are you getting information about the sleeve cover? It looks like you also changed Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing to say that it was artwork for the German single [1]. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    45cat.com shows images of the Dutch and German releases, which contain the same picture sleeve. The US release lacks one. Even the German release of the Donny and Marie Osmond version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" has a picture sleeve, while the US release doesn't. I can show you images from discogs, a user-generated website, if you like. If you don't believe in 45cat or discogs, then I don't know how else to convince you. If only eBay listings show more images of the releases.... George Ho ( talk) 23:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

September 5

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg

[ ]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rain Forest ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • Keep Whpq's point was absolutely valid, however, having read through the article it was used in, it now meets WP:NFCC#8. Rain Forest ( talk) 06:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Move file to Dumb Dumb (Somi song). WP:NFC#UUI#6 guides users to utilize non-free content in the article of the subject if it exists, which it does in this case. The critical commentary should be moved there as well. plicit 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 4

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg

[ ]

File:Starro, The Suicide Squad, Aug 2021.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NoobMiester96 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • weak keep it's the same character in a quite different (and quite popular) media. Seems quite relevant to the article and no reasonable amount of words is going to make the differences clear. This is "a picture is worth 1000 words" situation IMO. Weak because it's not clear all that is enough for using a non-free file... Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

August 31

File:Regiment of Artillery logo.png

[ ]

File:Regiment of Artillery logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:NLI Regiment logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:AK Regiment logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Baloch Regiment logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:FF Regiment logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Punjab Regiment logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Armoured Core logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Corps of AAD logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Corps of Engineers logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Army Ordinance Core logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Core of Military Intelligence logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Core of Signals logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Core of AAvn logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Services Core logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:EME Core logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Army Medical Core logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GC Saab ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

August 27

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png

[ ]

File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TAnthony ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

I've also asked for further copyright advice on WP:MCQ#Star Wars Stormtrooper and File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png, but it seems that no response have been made. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but overwrite with an image from official media because according to Fandom (which is listed as the source here, unacceptable) this image originates from http://www.anovos.com/collections/the-imperial-collection/products/star-wars-classic-trilogy-imperial-stormtrooper-pre-order (dead link) which was "awarded the STAR WARS™ high-end costume and high-end collectibles licenses" so the current image is no more valuable than a photo of a cosplayer wearing the same thing. 廣九直通車, according to Commons we have to use the separability test. While a large portion of the suit would be considered utilitarian, particularly the lower part of the helmet doesn't appear to be, containing many details without any function. It has been a source of debate for well over a decade on Commons though. @ Clindberg: would you agree that at least the helmet is eligible for copyright protection? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe a U.S. court ruled they were copyrightable (but it was a summary judgement, as the defendant did not show up) -- but they are not copyrightable in the UK, actually. See Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you know of a "real" ruling? The Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth article mentions a case in California where Lucasfilm won by default, i.e. the court never considered the question whether the costumes were copyrighted because the defendant never showed up in court. I don't think that a default ruling is suitable to determine if something is copyrighted or not.
      • For Commons, it is also necessary to determine the status in the source country. The French supreme court has ruled that furniture can be copyrighted and that photos of furniture can infringe the copyright of the furniture, so photos of costumes could be an issue in France. However, Wikipedia only looks at United States law and United States law exempts utilitarian objects from copyright protection. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Presumably there was a valid copyright registration for Lucasfilm to file suit in the first place -- if they have one of those, then I believe copyrightability is prima facie assumed by the court. I think a defendant would have to disprove it during the case, and the defendant did not show up. I'm not sure they had a sculpture registration directly, though General Mills has a couple of 1978 registrations on derivative stormtrooper toys. Those mention the movie itself as the underlying work, so Lucasfilm may have been relying on the character copyright embodied in the movie in order to file suit, rather than a direct sculptural registration. The U.S. Copyright Office searchable records only start in 1978 though, so it's possible there was something earlier. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
          Clindberg, I can see why the "it's a sculpture!" argument would fall flat. It clearly isn't a sculpture, it's a functional helmet. It will protect you from rain and foes armed with paintball guns. I wouldn't count on it as a bike helmet, but that's not a requirement to be utilitarian. What would be interesting (assuming this isn't what happened) is if Ainsworth had used all the holes in the lower part of the helmet to turn it into a functional gas mask, respirator or diving helmet. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's possible (but I have no helmet to check) that the holes actually allow for air to circulate so the actors won't suffocate/overheat. If that assumption is true it would make this considerably harder to judge, I think. But until we know more, I think it's safest to assume non-free. Besides that, I'd really prefer to see a genuine depiction from the movies in this case. A cosplayer ultimately isn't a Stormtrooper. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
          • @ Alexis Jazz: The Copyright Office has generally said that Halloween masks would tend to fall outside of the "useful article" scope, and are often registrable. See here. From that, Although a mask alone is not considered a useful article, a legitimate question arises regarding registration practices in instances where a copyrightable mask is combined and sold as a unit with an otherwise uncopyrightable costume. In such circumstances, the Copyright Office will register the "work" on the basis of the copyrightable authorship in the mask. A helmet could be an interesting part of that -- the helmet portion can be utilitarian, but if the portion in the mask area is considered "separable" or not utilitarian, it could still be a problem. It's in the gray area, for sure. There is also the possibility there is a "character" copyright on the details of stormtroopers, and a costume could infringe that (but not sure we delete photos of cosplay on those grounds, if the costumes themselves are legal). And photos which are not focusing on the mask portion may be fine, as well, if the copyright is just on the mask, much like a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle -- only photos focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep non-free image but replace, per above - I uploaded this image in the first place because every cosplay image previously used in the article was systematically deleted from Commons as a copyright violation (see Costumes and cosplay). I'm sort of shocked that there are so many such images on Commons now, perhaps the community has begun taking a less aggressive stance? In any case, I was unaware this was not an official image, so if a non-free image remains then I agree with Alexis Jazz it should be replaced with an official one.— TAnthony Talk 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Question @ Alexis Jazz and TAnthony: Commons had a deletion case involving a image depicting a Spiderman cosplay (which of course is the kind of character where the costume covers the full body of the actor/cosplayer), and the file involved is later closed after lawyer's opinion is solicited. Do you think such safeguard on Commons is sufficient to ensure that related files on Commons won't be suddenly deleted? 廣九直通車 ( talk) 05:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      廣九直通車, that 2009 email from Godwin has been superseded by the 2011 email from WMF legal which was discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      • My fault for not noticing that advice has since been superseded by another one. Fine then, I'll withdraw my request for deletion, and will wait for the replacement. Thanks for all of your comments! 廣九直通車 ( talk) 13:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
        I don't have access to the movies currently. TAnthony, can you supply an image from the movies? Or if you can find a suitable image at https://www.youtube.com/c/StarWars/videos I could take a screenshot. I found no great image in the trailers for the recent Star Wars movies on that channel but there's much more content there. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

August 22

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

[ ]

File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PopDisaster182 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • Many other Wikipedia pages for musical releases use additional covers that bear significance to the release in question. For example, the page for the song I Fought the Law includes additional infoboxes for covers that were done by the other artists, and have the associated images for said covers, but does not include an image in the main infobox for the page. User:PopDisaster182 ( talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Stefan2, if I'm not mistaken, this is usually standard protocol for music Wikiprojects when the item in question is not notable enough for its own article, but is relevant to an existing one. Such an occurrence is usually rare, especially when the art differs this much. Only problem is, journalists would have a hard time trying to mention this in news items because their editor would most likely tell them "no shit, Sherlock" (nicer of course, but you get the idea). A more common example is in "deluxe editions" of albums where not only the cover art differs significantly, but there is new material. dannymusiceditor oops 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The way WP:NFC#cite note-3 is witten, I think that only one image is permitted. The situation with deluxe editions is clearer. It looks similar to the child and adult editions of the books about Harry Potter, where Wikipedia only uses the covers of the child edition, so I don't think that we should use both regular and deluxe edition covers of music albums.
If the WP:NFC guideline has diverted from music guidelines, then a discussion is needed somewhere, probably at WT:NFC. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there has to be one of these discussions somewhere but I'm not certain where it is. All I'm aware of is that this is usually considered normal, as far as I know. dannymusiceditor oops 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • A WikiProject cannot decide to do something that supersedes a community-wide policy like the WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. If a WikiProject is providing guidance that isn't in accordance with a community-wide policy, it's up to the WikiProject to revise its guidance accordingly to comply with the policy or to get the policy changed. The best way to do the later is to start a discussion on the relevant policy's talk page. You might have a preliminary discussion on a WikiProject's talk page, but things will need to be ultimately sorted out on the policy's talk page. In the case of songs, it seems to be commons practice to put all of the cover versions of a song in the same article for encyclopedic reasons, even in cases where an individual cover might be WP:NSONG in its own right. In many cases, there are individual covers for each of these versions added to the article, but that doesn't necessarily make all of the additional covers NFCC compliant. I think that basically comes down to whether the assessment is that the cover art would be allowed if it were being used in an independent articles about notable cover version. I'm not sure how that applies due to the difference between "song" and "album". I guess the same reasoning could apply if the EP is deemed notable in its own right per WP:NALBUM, but in that case it might simply be better to create a separate article for the EP and then use WP:HATS to link the two articles together. Alternative cover versions used outside the main infobox are going to be harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and simply adding the file to a secondary infobox template isn't probably going to be deemed sufficient. Does the acoustic EP meet any of the criteria of NALBUM; if not, then it's going to be quite hard to justify the non-free use of its cover art. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NFC#cite note-3 is just talking about a particular state of affairs that automatically satisfies WP:NFCC#8. But even if we don't think it applies here, taking a step back and looking at the #8 "contextual significance" criterion directly in this case, I think it's fair to say it's satisfied. i.e. omitting this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. I mean, the "Acoustic EP" section is basically just a little stub article embedded inside another article. If the image would be appropriate for the exact same content if it were simply moved to its own article, why would it not also be appropriate here? Colin M ( talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

August 7

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg

[ ]

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niteshift36 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

  • It is a low resolution photo of the item. It doesn't lack contextual signifigance. If the article points out, in the lead, that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games, having a representation of what that looks like is helpful and in context. In addition, since the medals for each games are different, showing the ones for these particular games, such as in the 1996 Summer Olympics article, has value. Both of these are more than mere decoration. I expanded the rationale to reflect this. Clearly this low res picture doesn't degrade the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. Niteshift36 ( talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If the medals are different for each Olympic Games and sourced critical commentary about the design of the medals for the 2016 games can be found and added to 1996 Summer Olympics and then a corresponding non-free use rationale added to the file's page, then it might be possible to justify the file's use in that particular article per WP:NFC#CS. A separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use per WP:NFCCE; otherwise, the file can be removed simply for not having one and there doesn't seem to be a way to write a valid rationale based upon how the file is currently in 1996 Summer Olympics#Sports. As for the use in the Miller article, I disagree that a non-free image of a single medal represents that she was the most successful US athlete in the 1996 games. A visual representation of that is borderline decorative non-free use to begin with, but this isn't even a picture showing Miller with or wearing all of the medals she won. There have been quite a number of multiple gold medal winners over years at various Olympic games and such achievements can be more than sufficiently understood by readers of such articles without actually seeing images of the medals they won. So, the reader doesn't need to see a non-free picture of a gold medal to understand that Miller won any gold medals in 1996; moreover, there's nothing special about the design of this medal that's really contextually tied to Miller, at least nothing currently in Shannon Miller#1996 or anywhere else in the article, that would be hard for the reader to understand if they didn't see this particular image. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I disagree that there needs to be critical commentary about design differences to be relevant to the depiction. Miller wasn't wearing them at the event. If you can find an image of her wearing them, that would be a good replacement. Until then, images of Miller and of the medal will have to fill that void. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from Shannon Miller. The fact that she won a gold medal can be explained in text. There is no need to include an image of the medal.
    The image currently fails WP:NFCC#10c in 1996 Summer Olympics. WP:NFCI §2 says that logos can be used for identification and for Olympic games I think that the same can be said about the mascot and maybe the medal. Is the medal always the same? If they only change the roman numeral, the city name and the year, then I think that the image runs afoul of WP:NFC#UUI §14. If, on the other hand, the image also changes, then it is maybe only WP:NFCC#10c which is violated in the article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No, the medals aren't all the same. Any easy way to demonstarate that is..... by photos. Question: What makes this picture unacceptable but makes ones like this [2] ok? Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which means there are way less restrictions placed upon how they may be used. The file being discussed here was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content and, therefore, its use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained in WP:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia. Please note that uploading a file to Commons doesn't automatically mean its licensing is OK because files are constantly being deleted from Commons for a variety of reasons; however, that's an issue that would need to be resolved on Commons. If you have a concerns involving the 1964 medals photo, you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC, but there could be a variety of reasons the photo might be OK, including the information found in c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and c:COM:Switzerland. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I had a concern. I asked what the difference it. I'm actually trying to improve Wikipedia, but I'm starting to get tired of you talking to me like I'm an idiot. I have over 40,000 edits on English Wikipedia and have uploads at the commons as well. I'm asking how to do it better, so giving me some useless "things get deleted" wikilink as if I don't understand the basics borders on insulting. Clearly, you're not going to try to help see how we can retain the picture. Your interest in in deletion only. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid. You asked a question and I tried to answer. Since you're question involved an image on Commons, I just tried to point out that such things cannot be resolved here on English Wikipedia. Anyway, my apologies if the wording of my post or the links I added somehow seemed insulting because that was not my intent.
            I did explain my concerns about the file and what I think is needed to keep using it both the Miller and 1996 Summer Olympics articles. You seemed to disagree; so, there seemed to be no need to restate the reasons why I nominated the file for discussion.
            I am curious though as to why you think the same file uploaded to Commons under a different name is now your 100% "own work" and OK to release under a free license. Is there some reason for you to believe the engraving and design of the medal is not protected by copyright? Such things actually are often eligible for copyright protection per C:COM:CB#Jewelry and c:COM:CB#Engravings. So, unless you're actually the creator of the medal, then your photograph would seem to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights that need to be considered: the one for the photo and the one for the photographed item. Since the photograph entirely focuses on the medal, it would be hard to argue de minimis in this case, which means the copyright status of the medal needs to also be taken into account. I thought this was the reason why the file's licensing was converted by you to non-free per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 28#File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg.. If something has change since then and you can clarify what it is, then perhaps this FFD can be quickly resolved. The file uploaded to Wikipedia is now orphaned non-free use and will be deleted per WP:F5 if it remains as such. However, if the Commons file cannot be kept because of c:COM:DW, it will end up deleted as well. Maybe it would be better to re-add the non-free file to the articles where it was being used until any issues with the one you uploaded to Commons are resolved or this FFD is closed, whichever happens first. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't magically think it's my own work etc. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. The focus may be on the medal, but the low resolution photo hardly diminishes the original copyright holders commercial opportunities. Nothing has changed from the conversion. I still believe all of those to be correct. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

July 20

Henry Kulka images

[ ]

File:Parker store.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Maple furniture.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Friedlander House, Masons avenue, Herne Bay, Auckland. View of lounge taken from elevated dining niche. Designed by Henry Kulka in 1967.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Roberta Ave House, 1962.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Innes Schweppes - Coca Cola Building designed and realised by Henry Kulka on the Corner of Victoria Street, Hamilton, New Zealand in 1955.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Photographer Cedric Firth for architect Henry Kulka, 1955. Staircase study..jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Fisher and Paykel (F&P) head offices and factory. Designed by architect Henry Kulka. Mt Wellington, Auckland, New Zealand, 1955.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Fletcher Building Head Office in Penrose, Auckland, New Zealand. Designed by Henry Kulka. Interior view of curved staircase inside the entrance. 1941.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Front south facing façade and front entry of wooden Bungalow for Dr E. Meyer, Springcombe Avenue, St Heliers Bay, Auckland. Designed and realised in 1962..jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Kantor Raumplan in Jablonec Nad Nisou. View of south facing garden façade. Villa realised autonomously by Henry Kulka in 1934.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Original interior photograph of the Villa Kantor Raumplan designed and realised by Henry Kulka for Dr Kantor in Jablonec Nad Nisou , Czechoslovakia, in 1934.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Semler, galleried Raumplan apartment, realised in 1933-4 for Oskar Semler at Klatovska St, Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. View from lower hall into main lower lounge and fireplace in fire niche with lowered ceiling.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Khuner. Double level gallery view down to fireplace and dining niche. Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Villa Khuner, Eastern façade, Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasuwatanabe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

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

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

  • Comment So I did some basic research on the Villa Khuner photographs 1 2. Those images are commissioned by Henry Kulka for his 1931 publication Adolf Loos. Das Werk des Architekten and taken by Martin Gerlach, [1] a photographer who died in 1944. [2] I would argue given German / Austrian copyright law, those photographs are now public domain and the files should be updated to add Template:PD-URAA.
    Overall I am admittedly hesitant to remove fair use photographs for buildings truly destroyed or otherwise permanently damaged, rendering the photographs possibly irreplaceable. Although that's not to say some of these photos shouldn't be removed. I just think deleting them all would be a bad idea. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for trying to dig up more information on these. If some of them are PD, then that would mean they're no longer subject to WP:NFCC. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to simply preserve images just because they are rare or might otherwise be irreplaceable as explained in WP:IRREPLACEABLE; so, just keeping them for that reason regardless of whether their use complies with the NFCC is not really something we should be doing. If someone wants to preserve the images for posterity, they can download them and host them on some other platform. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, thank you Elephanthunter. Based on what you say, it sounds like the files should be moved to Commons. I'd imagine there are additional knowledgeable folks there who can further evaluate the URAA claim if you are not certain. I'd be happy to move them over if you update the copyright tags. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 20:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to commons as PD per above rationale. Buffs ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Giving Voice to a Building: A Critical Analysis of Adolf Loos's Landhaus Khuner" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  2. ^ WINKLER, SUSANNE. "Photography : WIEN MUSEUM". Retrieved 20 July 2021. Martin Gerlach Jr. (1879-1944)

File:Pangasinense People.jpg

[ ]

File:Pangasinense People.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mlgc1998 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

  • Keep The image is present on a Philippine government website [3]. The site copyright notice says content is created and maintained by the Provincial Information Office, and owned by the government Province of Pangasinan. It is thus effectively public domain, as as explained in Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines. I have updated the image template to recommend moving the image to Wikimedia Commons. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    The website must state that it is public domain for PD-PhilippinesGov to apply. The website in question was ARR at the time of uploading. This will not stand on commons. This is copyrighted. I wish it worked the way you argue, but it unfortunately doesn't. Sennecaster ( What now?) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    @ Sennecaster: This has already been discussed in the case of Smithsonian on Commons, but ARR use by governments is a complicated matter. Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that public domain requires some kind of explicit "public domain" notice, but that is not the case on enwiki. Public domain is inferred, and the rules regarding that process are laid out in broad strokes on WP:PD. As far as I can tell there is no special exemption to this policy for the Philippines, nor does PD-PhilippinesGov require sources explicitly state the images are public domain. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @ Sennecaster and Elephanthunter: this is very tricky. I usually consider official socmed pages of the likes of the Province of Pangasinan as under PD. But there is one caveat: did the photographer of this particular file took this photo as part of his/her regular duty as an employee of the Provincial Government? See c:COM:Philippines#Commissioned works, rule #1 for works created during employment. If the second case (letter b.) is the case here (in which the IP rights belong to the province), then this passes Commons' house rules on policy. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    It is generally presumed that in the Philippines, official social media presences are managed by staff members of the office in question as part of their regular duties. At the risk of WP:COI, I'll use this example: my grandmother is mayor of Gasan, Marinduque, and the various offices under her office have official Facebook accounts (e.g. her office, the municipal tourism office, the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, etc.). Those accounts are managed by employees of the municipality as part of their regularly-prescribed duties, and as such their contents are presumed to be in the public domain. -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 04:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless I'm totally missing something, I don't think this can be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. No disrespect to anyone is intended, but this looks basically to be nothing more than a photo of a group of people standing in a room; so, a similar photo could almost be certainly taken by someone to serve that same encyclopedic purpose, and then uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license. For example, a photo like File:KKPK Katlung Misyun.jpg (assuming that's not a copyvio) also being used in the same section of the same article seems reasonable to create or find. In addition, given also the way this file is currently being used, it would also be hard to justify this as non-free per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.
    The argument that this is PD made by Sky Harbor above, however, is interesting though and might actually be OK. I still think the provenance of the photo would need a bit more clarification to to eliminate any doubts about it. I'm not sure about c:COM:Phillippines, but not everything posted on an official US government website is, for example, automatically PD. US government websites do occasionally "use" content created by third-parties (not US government employees as part of these official duties) and these are not OK to license as {{ PD-USGov}}. Whether the Philippines has similar provisions in its copyright law(s) is something I'm not sure about, but that would one concern that I think would need to be addressed before this could be moved to Commons. If there are any doubts as to whether this would survive a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be keeping it under such a license. If there's a chance that anyone in WP:PHILIPPINES could simply take their own similar photo and upload that to Commons, then that might be the best way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly: there is. At Section 176.3 of the copyright law of the Philippines: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

September 11

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

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

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

File:The Clash - London Calling.ogg

File:The Clash - London Calling.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently used in album article London Calling (not London Calling (song)) and genre article punk rock. Reading the album article, I'm unconvinced that the sample is necessary to identify the album release. Details about the song itself, including references to events, in the album article are brief but can be already understood without the sample, IMO. The usage may fail WP:NFCC#8.

For usage in the genre article, the song itself is mentioned only in the sample caption; it's not mentioned outside the caption. Also, there are other samples used in the genre article. I'm uncertain whether the usage meets WP:NFCC#8, but I default to deciding that it may fail that criterion, just in case. I don't think a sample of lyrics (in any medium, like an audio clip or text) is necessary to understand what the genre is about. A sample of instrument, like an electric guitar or drums or cymbals, would do. Right?

Maybe the sample belongs in the song article, but the song article as-is probably doesn't detail much about the composition and musical arrangement. I could stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho ( talk) 09:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It belongs in the song article, but not necessarily the album article. Rlendog ( talk) 23:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
What about the genre article? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that one. This is one of the most recognizable punk rock songs so arguably could belong there as an example of what a punk rock song sounds like. But it is not necessarily a typical punk rock song, since (in my opinion at least) the Clash had by then moved to include other musical influences. Rlendog ( talk) 17:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Aalborg Boldspilklub logo.svg

File:Aalborg Boldspilklub logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yogwi21 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this actually text logo? Commons seemed to think it was ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  • See c:COM:TOO Denmark: Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.
If some fonts are copyrighted in the source country, maybe this applies to the font used here? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Amruta Khanvilkar.jpg

File:Amruta Khanvilkar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AlyssaRachelleSara ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused photo. Not sure if poster in the background is de minimis. Ixfd64 ( talk) 03:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Ixfd64, I'd consider the background de minimis which could be cropped anyway and a photo of Amruta Khanvilkar is obviously within the educational scope of Wikimedia. However, this photo is also found in a slideshow on Rediff.com with the same 667 × 1,000 resolution. According to that page, it was uploaded there on Sun, 3 August 2014 while our image was uploaded on 4 December 2015. This isn't 100% definitive proof (some websites might display wrong dates or change content to add photos from Wikipedia after the fact), but considering that the slideshow contains more photos in the same setting while File:Amruta Khanvilkar.jpg is AlyssaRachelleSara's only upload, I think that the Rediff user RealTime Photos is, in fact, the author. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File:1st seap games.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:1st seap games.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dakilang Isagani ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Considered simple at Commons c:File:1st seap games.png ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Per Paul 012 I have changed the license to PD-Thailand+PD-textlogo and changed my vote. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Properly transfer upload history, and delete local copy. Even if it were considered copyrightable in Thailand, institutional copyright lasts fifty years after first publication in the country, so protection would have expired in 2009. This is beyond the URAA restoration date, but as it wouldn't be beyond the threshold of originality in the US, this shouldn't matter. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Persitara.png

File:Persitara.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Historical logo for Persitara Jakarta Utara, fails WP:NFCC#8. The filename shadows a copyvio on Commons, c:File:Persitara.png which is used on w:id:Persitara Jakarta Utara. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Western Fair Raceway Infield.jpg

File:Western Fair Raceway Infield.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rebelbasesloaded ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Burnsy at Labatt Park Ldn.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rebelbasesloaded ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

As well as File:Burnsy at Labatt Park Ldn.jpg. Poor quality, non-descript. Not useful for an educational purpose. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete both, poor quality images adding no value to the Western Fair article. Feels like a troll as there are two identical images claiming to be represent two different things. Salavat ( talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Salavat, without further evidence we should assume good faith, maybe they intended to upload two different images but selected the wrong file for one of the uploads. Or they remembered incorrectly where it was taken for the first upload. ( File:Western Fair Raceway Infield.jpg was uploaded in 2020, File:Burnsy at Labatt Park Ldn.jpg in 2013) This IP edit that changes the description and date from "A fan celebrates the London Majors' 2013 season at Labatt Park." on "2013-06/09" to "A Majors fan celebrates the historical baseball displays in Centre Field during Baseball Day, 2006." on "2006-07/01" would suggest some serious confusion. But either way, I see little value of this picture to any article. It could have been taken anywhere, anytime. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 16:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent nominations

September 12

File:Petitstaderemera.jpeg

File:Petitstaderemera.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nessi6 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Content created by http://www.spla.pro/ appear to be licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0, however the image on the source website is taken from a person's blog at https://loinrwanda.blogspot.com/2010/10/not-all-sunshine-and-lollipops.html and appears to be copyrighted and not freely licensed. Dylsss( talk contribs) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Gakkou No Kowai Transparent.png

File:Gakkou No Kowai Transparent.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Possibly unfree and NFCC violation. Despite "own work" credit, the image and caption on Hanako-san states it's also from an anime called Gakkou no Kowai Uwasa Shin: Hanako-san ga Kita. A dubious tagging and no clear fair use claim. Ribbet32 ( talk) 22:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Shirley Bassey - Get the Party Started (single).png

File:Shirley Bassey - Get the Party Started (single).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dell9300 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The cover art of Shirley Bassey's take on Pink's song " Get the Party Started" was PRODded but then de-PRODded in December of last year. My concern is whether the visual identification of Bassey's recording is necessary. There's already a cover art of Pink's recording, but it's physically different from the cover art that I'm nominating here. Sure, the release and distribution of Bassey's recording are different from Pink's. However, reading the whole article, I can already understand the song as one of Pink's songs.

If the case is about identifying specifically Bassey's recording, the whole section about that recording would be already understood enough, to me, without any cover art as visual identifier. Also, the Bassey rendition itself performed so-so, if not modestly, in the UK but not elsewhere around the world. Perhaps the cover art may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#3a. Furthermore, there are free images of Shirley Bassey, one of which I plan to use in case the cover art gets deleted. This cover art shows a woman in silhouette probably resembling Bassey in the 1960s or 1970s... or maybe a random female singer in the 1960s/1970s getup. As I must say, the cover art may not show Bassey in the time when she recorded Pink's song. George Ho ( talk) 23:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 13

File:Chicago(magazine)Logo.png

File:Chicago(magazine)Logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gpkp ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

non-free, no longer in use. Ich ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Gravity Noir

File:The Early Years (Gravity Noir album).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trix18365 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Liberation (Gravity Noir album).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trix18365 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Future Days.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trix18365 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG and WP:NFC#UUI §2. Additionally violation of WP:NFCC#10c as the FURs are not relevant to the use. The FURs seem to be for redirects to this article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - Clear violation of WP:NFC#UUI. I've taken the liberty of removing the images from the article. — Pbrks ( talk) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I did that a few days ago, but the uploader added them back to the article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Carmona and Zamora with miters after their episcopal consecrations by Thục.png

File:Carmona and Zamora with miters after their episcopal consecrations by Thục.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by King Pius ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in Ngô Đình Thục#Consecrations of bishops and declaration of sedevacantism which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image is not needed for the reader to understand that "Thục consecrated the two Mexican sedevacantist priests and former seminary professors Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora as bishops." because that statement is supported by a citation per WP:FREER. Moreover, while the consecration might have been an important and significant event, a photo of it isn't necessarily as important or as significant per WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:NFC#CS. There's no sourced crtical commentary specifically related to this photo itself and removing it from the article wouldn't really have a detrimental effect on the reader's understanding of the corresponding article content. Although Thục is deceased, there is a free image of him being used in the main infobox of the article for primary identification purposed which means a non-free is not needed just to identify Thục; so, there's no justification of that type of non-free use as well per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Enthronement of Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI.png

File:Enthronement of Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by King Pius ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in Mark Pivarunas#Episcopacy which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image is not needed for the reader to understand that "Pivarunas was elected to be consecrated a bishop.." because that statement can be more than sufficiently supported by citations and understood by text content alone per WP:FREER. Moreover, while being made a bishop be an important and significant event in a Pivarunas' life, a photo of it isn't necessarily as important or as significant per WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:NFC#CS. There's no sourced crtical commentary specifically related to this photo itself and removing it from the article wouldn't really have a detrimental effect on the reader's understanding of the corresponding article content. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Mark St. John aka. Mark Norton during Kiss' "Animalize" tour.jpg

File:Mark St. John aka. Mark Norton during Kiss' "Animalize" tour.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mc peko ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Blantant WP:NFCC#1 failure-- File:Mark St. John.jpg, itself from File:Kiss (1984).jpg, is available Эlcobbola  talk 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.gif

File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Begoon ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned; superseded by File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.png. — Pbrks ( talk) 16:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat ( talk) 00:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

September 14

File:SC Apolda VfL.png

File:SC Apolda VfL.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiggy! ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

At commons c:File:SC Apolda VfL.png under as a textlogo, the only complex elements (if any) in this are the stylised S C A rendering in the centre of the logo. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 03:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bo Wei.jpg

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: Deleted as F8, A file from commons under this name is now visible. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 10:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bo Wei.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zoticogrillo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Commons considered this logo to be pd. c:File:Bo Wei.jpg as it orignated in the 19th century. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 03:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Kwantlen Polytechnic University (logo).png

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: Deleted as F8, A file from commons with the same name is now visible.

File:Kwantlen Polytechnic University (logo).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hastymashi ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Commons considered this to be a simple logo c:File:Kwantlen Polytechnic University (logo).png. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Is she not passing fair song by Elgar cover 1908.jpg

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: Deleted as F8, so nom here redundant. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 10:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Is she not passing fair song by Elgar cover 1908.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P0mbal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Under a CC license on Commons, This is a text cover. are there elements that tip it over TOO in the UK? ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Snowpiercer (TV series) Title Card.png

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: 'Deleted as F8, A File from Commons with the same name is visible.

File:Snowpiercer (TV series) Title Card.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by YoungForever ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Commons considered this simple c:File:Snowpiercer (TV series) Title Card.png. Only elements (if any) potentially above TOO are the continuation of the middle horizontal stroke of the E across the R at the end of the text. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn and unilaterally updated to PD-textlogo. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:In the Dawn song by Elgar cover 1902.jpg

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: Apparently deleted as F8 ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 10:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:In the Dawn song by Elgar cover 1902.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P0mbal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Text cover at commons c:File:In the Dawn song by Elgar cover 1902.jpg, which elements if any are above TOO? ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 04:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Carlin Motorsport Logo.png

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: relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}}. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Carlin Motorsport Logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rokonader ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Simple logo at Commons c:File:Carlin Motorsport Logo.png , However the company is based in the UK which has a low TOO. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 04:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:SMIC logo.svg

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: Withdrawn/Deleted as F8 , A file from Commons with the same name is now visible.

File:SMIC logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Considered a simple logo at Commons c:File:SMIC logo.svg ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn and unilaterally updated to PD-textlogo based on Commons tag ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Cincinnati Bearcats logo.svg

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: Withdrawn/Deleted as F8 , A file from Commons with the same name is now visible. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 10:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Cincinnati Bearcats logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalel2007 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm not sure this is a simple logo, The bear claws top of logo are the concern. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 04:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:AMD Radeon wordmark 2016.svg

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: Withdrawn/Deleted as F8 , A file from Commons with the same name is now visible. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:AMD Radeon wordmark 2016.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ConCompS ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Text logo, Why under NFCC when free at Commons c:File:AMD Radeon wordmark 2016.svg? ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 04:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn and unilaterally updated to PD-textlogo. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

September 15

File:Petrus Christus Nativity (Cain and Abel).jpg

File:Petrus Christus Nativity (Cain and Abel).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victoriaearle ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:The Nativity, c. 1450 by Petrus Christus (NGA).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Petrus Christus Nativity (Cain and Abel).jpg Magog the Ogre ( t c) 02:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • This can be speedily closed. It's (part of) a painting. Vexations ( talk) 14:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, Vexations, this is a crop of a 15th century painting. If any doubt remains, the source shows a CC0 label. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Note: I just added File:The Nativity, c. 1450 by Petrus Christus (NGA).jpg (which I just uploaded) to the nomination as it is the original that this file was extracted from. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Alexis Jazz, euh... yeah, that's what I meant. It's a painting, so the deletion rationale does not apply. Speedy keep. Vexations ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the picture is in the public domain, there is no need to keep this local copy as there is a copy on Commons. I assume that the file will be kept on Commons when the deletion request is closed. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Stefan2, if the Commons file is kept, sure. Until that happens though we should hold on to our copy. The file I just added (which you couldn't have known about) which is the source for this crop doesn't exist on Commons as far as I could tell, only photoshopped versions. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nlmodel.png

File:Nlmodel.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned; no apparent use. — Pbrks ( talk) 02:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:China Eastern Airlines logo (circle variant).svg

File:China Eastern Airlines logo (circle variant).svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JetBlast ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Historical logo for China Eastern Airlines. No valid fair use rationale, not sure if it's simple enough for {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It possibly is, I'm just not sure in this case. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 06:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Service Details At A Fashion Establishment In Tokyo Japan.jpg

File:Service Details At A Fashion Establishment In Tokyo Japan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iinokento ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

FFD referral, as this is a photo of a sign, which would necessarily be a derivative work of that sign, There is no additional license information concerning the sign given, and as it contains artwork which is above TOO, I am wondering if it is not in fact freely licensable. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 07:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Photo of a computer screen, not of a sign. The information on the screen is presumably unfree. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ShakespeareFan00, Stefan2, I think this photo is very informative (shows how a fashion health shop in Japan works) and it's difficult to convey the same information with just text. The picture shows this isn't happening in a literal back alley, it shows the way the shop communicates with clients and how aware those establishments are of the law. And I don't see how a free alternative could be created realistically. Could this be converted to non-free? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:IPL 2019 logo.jpg

File:IPL 2019 logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ImSonyR9 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Was being used on 2021 Indian Premier League and 2019 Indian Premier League in violation of WP:NFC#UUI point 14 (generic logos shouldn't be used on articles for specific seasons). The only page where the logo would be acceptable would be Indian Premier League, and that page uses File:Indian Premier League Official Logo.svg instead, so we don't need 2 logos Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:K(NearestNeighbor) distribution for two real-world networks.gif

File:K(NearestNeighbor) distribution for two real-world networks.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thyamu ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not own work, originally published in a non-free journal ( preprint). While Physical Review E is now Open Access (with the payment of a publication fee), that policy did not take effect until 2011 and is not retroactive. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Size (n) and assortativity coefficient (r) for various networks.jpg

File:Size (n) and assortativity coefficient (r) for various networks.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thyamu ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not own work, originally published in a non-free journal ( preprint). While Physical Review Letters is now Open Access (with the payment of a publication fee), that policy did not take effect until 2011 and is not retroactive. While the data contained in this table is likely not protected by copyright in the US under Fiest v. Rural, the selection and arrangement of the data may be. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

September 16

File:Reasonable Person Model Diagram 2.png

File:Reasonable Person Model Diagram 2.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Avikbasu ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No specific source given that verifies that Rachel Kaplan has given CC-ASA 3.0 copyright permission. -- Beland ( talk) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Avikbasu: Do you have a personal or professional connection to the Kaplans? -- Beland ( talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: It should be fairly easy to recreate a free equivalent of this diagram. Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:QTV logo 2006.jpg

File:QTV logo 2006.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lmc106 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails guidelines on non-free content. It is currently being used in the gallery section of Q (TV network) to illustrate the history of the network's logos. However, according to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use: "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." Its current use seems to be of décorative nature than educational nature. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Quality Television 2007.png

File:Quality Television 2007.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marco Carlo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails guidelines on non-free content. It is currently being used in the gallery section of Q (TV network) to illustrate the history of the network's logos. However, according to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use: "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." Its current use seems to be of décorative nature than educational nature. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 unless either of the following take place: (1) the consensus is that the file is too simple for copyright protect and should be relicensed as either {{ PD-logo}} or {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} or (2) some sourced critical commentary specific to the former logo itself is added ot the article. I think this is at least PD in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States; so, converting it to "PD-ineligible-USonly" seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. @ JWilz12345: You are correct that non-free image galleries like Q (TV network)#Gallery are, in general, pretty much never allowed per WP:NFG; however, there are often better ways to resolve such issues that don't require starting a discussion here at WP:FFD. Such files can either be WP:BOLDly resolved (e.g. removed as a clear-cut WP:NFCCP violation or converted to another license (just make sure you clarify why in an edit summary in either case)) or can be WP:PRODded for deletion; they only really need to be discussed at FFD when the removal has been disputed or is otherwise contentious. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Leslie Allen Williams.png

File:Leslie Allen Williams.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Mugshot sourced from a newspaper website (Detroit Free Press), no license indicated. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 20:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: This file possibly can be treated as non-free content. A file not having a copyright license isn't really something that needs to be discussed here at FFD. You can tag such files for speedy deletion per WP:F4. You can also provide an appropriate license yourself if you want or seek assistance at WP:MCQ if you're not sure. FFD is usually only for discussing file realted matters that are contentious or otherwise proving difficult to resolve. Anyway, at first glance, it seems possible that this file could be used in Leslie Allen Williams for primary indentification purposes under a {{ Non-free biog-pic}} license and a {{ Non-free use rationale biog}} non-free use rationale if there are no unresolvable WP:NFCCP issues. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Arohn Kee.jpg

File:Arohn Kee.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claims fair use exemption, but that doesn't apply to images of living people, per WP:NFC#UUI BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep The rationale is written rather poorly and needs to be updated. As for the file itself, the subject is imprisoned for life without possibility of parole. The opportunity to obtain a free license equivalent is therefore zero. Yes, the subject is alive. No, the image is not replaceable. This is a narrow situation in which we do allow non-free images. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Hammersoft, I'll defer to you, I hadn't been aware of the "imprisoned for life" exception. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries. It's not really codified anywhere, but it comes up from time to time at WT:NFC. We've applied such exceptions very infrequently. There was an attempt to include a non-free image at Colton Harris Moore some years back while he was imprisoned, but that exception wasn't granted. It's really based on whether a free image could be obtained/made. Given that he's imprisoned for life without possibility of parole, that opportunity will never arise. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File:BobbyMaxwell.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted as copyright violation per WP:CSD#F9; image taken from the source indicated, not claimed as fair use, and clearly not the work of the State of California as attributed to being from "William S. Murphy / Los Angeles Times ". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:BobbyMaxwell.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source attributes William S. Murphy-Los Angeles Times as the author and there is no evidence the image, apparently a press file, is State of California work as claimed by the uploader's license affixed. ww2censor ( talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Clear copyvio. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: The {{ PD-CAGov}} tag does seem incorrect, and there also doesn't seem to be any justification for converting this to non-free. Maxwell (the subject of the photo) was a prime suspect and subsequently convicted of the cirme, but that conviction was then vacated many years later. Maxwell is deceased and thus a non-free image of him could possibly be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about him, but I don't think it quite meets that required standard for non-free use in Skid Row Stabber#Suspect, unless there is something particular to the photo itself that was the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources at the time. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

September 17

File:Norglide-Logo-lg.jpg

File:Norglide-Logo-lg.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kagundu ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, no apparent use. — Pbrks ( talk) 04:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nepenthes clipeata.jpg

File:Nepenthes clipeata.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XQ fan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The species is not extinct. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Wcam ( talk) 12:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Skid Row Stabbing.png

File:Skid Row Stabbing.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This appears to have been written by a serial killer, so the copyright tag is incorrect. Copyright is owned by the creator and the photo of it taken by police is an unlicensed derivative, as they don't own the copyright. Image is orphaned, so if we want to argue it can be kept as fair use, it should still be deleted as unused fair use. ♟♙ ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Beverly June Kludt.png

File:Beverly June Kludt.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, poor quality photo scan from a newspaper ♟♙ ( talk) 16:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Joan Stewart.png

File:Joan Stewart.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned low-quality photo of an old document. No apparent use on Wikipedia. ♟♙ ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Philip Joseph Hughes Serialkiller.png

File:Philip Joseph Hughes Serialkiller.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unnecessary duplicate upload of File:Philip Hughes Serialkiller.png. ♟♙ ( talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Philip Joseph Hughes jr.png

File:Philip Joseph Hughes jr.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unnecessary duplicate upload of File:Philip Hughes Serialkiller.png. ♟♙ ( talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Skid Row Stabber.png

File:Skid Row Stabber.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mint69 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused image with no apparent use. ♟♙ ( talk) 16:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:20180810 MMM - Palm Line.jpeg

File:20180810 MMM - Palm Line.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geoff3Cae ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of two other photographs. No evidence that they are in public domain or freely licensed. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:About To Crack (album).jpg

File:About To Crack (album).jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vendex ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that Baizley has released this cover into public domain. Could possibly qualify for fair use. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Three Pacific Electric tickets.jpg

File:Three Pacific Electric tickets.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Slambo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The images seems {{ PD-US-no notice}}, but can User:Slambo provide a source? GZWDer ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

keep - These are three actual Pacific Electric ride tickets in my personal railroadiana collection. I put them on my flatbed scanner with a black background to make the image. Slambo (Speak) 17:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Antici Mattei.jpg

File:Antici Mattei.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maoun ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of another photograph. Not sure if original photograph is old enough to be in public domain. Not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Joseph Lagana 2018.jpeg

File:Joseph Lagana 2018.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BappleBusiness ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Joseph Lagana 2018 (cropped).jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BappleBusiness ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

52:18A-234.3 defines data and dataset used in 52:18A-234.5 as

"Data" means final versions of statistical or factual information in alphanumeric form, in as granular form as possible, and reflected in a list, table, graph, chart, map, or other non-narrative form that can be digitally transmitted or processed, and regularly created or maintained by or on behalf of and owned by a State department or agency that records a measurement, transaction, or determination related to the mission of that State department or agency.


"Dataset" means a named collection of related, digitally-stored data with the collection containing individual data units organized or formatted in a specific and prescribed way, often in tabular form, and accessed by a specific access method that is based on the dataset organization, but not including any data that is protected from disclosure under applicable federal or State law.

The NJ open data law applies to data as in statistics and facts, thus I don't see these images being free. Dylsss( talk contribs) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I agree the files should be deleted. I didn't read over the laws as closely as I should have. ~ BappleBusiness [talk] 00:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

September 18

Footer

Today is September 18 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 18 – ( 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 18===" 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.