Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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 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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • 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 page. 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=2018 August 17}} 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. Also, add {{ffd|log=2018 August 17}} 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:fdw|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:fdw-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=2018 August 17}} 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 1920, not 1926.
  • 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

Contents

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:

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations

August 11

File:Steve-clark.jpg

File:Steve-clark.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thief12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There's already the free alternative File:Steve Clark.jpeg. It's not as good a picture but perfectly suitable. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 09:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.jpg

File:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep As with all the ones below, JJMC89 has first removed fair use templates with inadequate explanation, and then put these up here. This is not a good way to proceed. In any case, some fair uses remained, so I'm not sure what the point of "discussing" here is. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Again, a painting by an American painter who was active when a copyright notice and renewal was required. Per WP:NFCC#1, we should not accept a non-free painting by him. Additionally, this is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the one about the painter. Additionally, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Stefan2. xplicit 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, fair use established, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove from all articles except Hans Hofmann and Color Field in the absence of substantive sourced commentary regarding the individual painting. The uses here are particularly poor in terms of NFCC policy compliance, since they typically are used to illustrate of ten lengthy, generally unsourced lists of artists characterized as important, displayed in de facto galleries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, fair use established per above. Coldcreation (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File is currently being used in seven times in six articles: Hans Hofmann, Color Field#Historical roots, Abstract expressionism#Gorky, Hofmann, and Graham, twice in History of painting#Abstract expressionism, Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts) and Western painting#Abstract expressionism.

    Possible keep in "Hans Hoffman". The file is being used in the main infobox of the Hofmann article which seems inappropriate because the main infobox image should serve the encyclopedic purpose of primarily identifying Hofmann himself, and not one of his works. While I could see moving the file to the article body as an example of the Hofmann's particular style, there are already two other non-free image apparently serving that purpose which is problematic per WP:NFCC#3a. Moreover, there is no specific sourced commentary of The Gate anywhere at all in the article which is a problem because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. Of the three files mentioned above File:Hans Hofmann Effervescence 1944.jpg appears to be from an earlier period than The Gate, but File:Hans Hofmann Pompeii 1959.jpg seems to have been painted around the same time. It might be possible to justify two non-free images as representative examples from different periods of Hofmann's career, but not two painted within the same year or within a year or two of each other without any specific sourced critical commentary of either painting. Simply mentioning the painting by name twice in the article is not enough of a sufficient justification for non-free use per WP:FREER. So, I suggest remove either The Gate or Pompeii with the remaining being kept as a representative of Hofmann's work circa 1959–60.

    Remove from "History of painting#Abstract expressionism", "Modernism#After World War II (mainly the visual and performing arts)" and "Western painting#Abstract expressionism". These particular non-free use do not seem NFCCP compliant at all. These are more general historical/genre articles with hatnotes or links to more specific articles where this file can be seen, and this seems more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:FREER. The "Western painting" articles seems to bascially summarize content found in other articles and the painting isn't even mentioned a single time by name. The same thing can be said for the "Modernism" article where the painting is only mentioned by name in the file's caption and the artist is only mentioned by name three times in the entire article. The file is actually being used twice in the same section of the "History of painting" article (once in the body of the section and once in an image gallery) which is completely unnecessary per NFCC#3a and fails NFCC#10c (a separate specific rationale is needed for "each use", not "each article"). There are hatnotes and links to related articles where the painting might be seen so even a single use in the "History of painting" article is questionale per NFCC#8.

    Possible keep in the "Color Field" article, but remove from "Abstract expressionism". The "Color Field", like "Hans Hofmann", seems more suitable for this file. There is some discussion of Hofmann in "Color Field", but it's unsourced so it's not clear how much is WP:OR or WP:SYN. It would be better to have sourced critical commentary about the painting itself in the body of the article (instead of an unsourced claim in the file's caption) which shows how this painting not only is representative of Hofmann's work, but also of this particular style of painting. The use in "Abstact expressionism" cannot really be justified because the "Color Field" subsection appears to be just a summary of the "Color Field" article, so there's doesn't seem to be a real need for the readr to see the file here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons? If not, then unsure - I went copyright.gov and did not find a copyright renewal of Hofmann's art portraits, including this image. If that's the case, then would moving it to Commons be all right? BTW, I found the 1942 self-portrait of him and consider it the better image for the infobox than this one. Indeed, I could not find a renewal at the 1969 and 1970 catalogs. --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need input on the question posted by George Ho. Imma summon GermanJoe as they have in the past processed such questions well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Pings do not work within the comment section of {{relist}}. Re-pinging GermanJoe. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - all usages violate NFCC # 10c (insufficient cookie-cutter rationales). They also violate NFCC #8 with little or no contextual significance. Arguably some sourced detailed coverage specifically about the image in Hans Hofmann or Color field could justify a non-free usage in the future, but the current articles don't have that content. Regarding a Commons transfer: the Guggenheim Foundation notes a copyright claim by "© 2018 Renate, Hans & Maria Hofmann Trust/Artist's Rights Society (ARS), New York". Of course this claim may or may not be valid, but without clear evidence for an invalid claim we shouldn't move such files to Commons (see also Hans Hofmann#Hofmann Estate for details). GermanJoe (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

August 12

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Gnome (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The permission parameter, U.S. criminal law stipulates that police arrest records are public property and, as such, can be assessed once an individual is arrested and fingerprinted is completely untrue for state level photos. Federal photos, sure. As all works created by federal employees during the course of their duties is in the public domain. But not state level photos. Only certain states put things in the public domain and Texas isn't one of them. Majora (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I was aware of Texas passing legislation obliging legal entities that were in the business of publishing mugshots to take them down when requested to do so, without charging a fee for that. In the relevant bill from 2013, there is this piece of language: Criminal record information published by a business entity is considered...accurate if the information...was obtained by the entity from a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency, including the Department of Public Safety, or any other governmental agency or entity within the 60-day period preceding the date of publication. Since there is no mention of restrictions on publishing in general of aforesaid "criminal record information" (which includes mugshots), I am or was under the impression that the mugshots are in the public domain. But, of course, if the case is as you present it above then the uploaded image should come down. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, The Gnome, I'm afraid that as far as I know there isn't an exception for mugshots. Harvard copyright center also does not show any exceptions for these types of photos. It is gray and there are binding examples of state works that are copyrightable in Texas. So we can't assume. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, Majora. I'll have to study a bit. -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you point me to this consensus, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz so I can modify my patrolling in the future? I know that articles on the person could potentially fall under fair use but we don't have an article directly on Donald Bess. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you please clarify, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? Are you saying that only the "use rationale is incorrect" and that if the rationale is changed the image can be kept? Or that the image should be discarded in any case? -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can't say with certainty what consensus practice is. Consensus appears to support inclusion of nonfree images of murder victims in articles centered on their killers, but I'm not sure how sound that consensus is. I don't know whether the converse holds, and am hoping to see some discussion on both situations here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majora (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the presumption stated above by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Having added this image to the murder article does not affect my suggestion, because paramount to me is formulating clear Wikipedia policy. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly because of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's caveat Well, I can't say with certainty what consensus practice is. and because Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_21#File:Rodger_small.png appears to imply the opposite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If possibly unfree, then delete - An unfree image of the convicted does not help increase readers' understanding of the murder, which is the main article subject. Id est it would fail WP:NFCC#8. Moreover, there's already an image of the victim, making the mugshot image excessive per WP:NFCC#3a. What else is needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic? Personally, I can understand the event without the mugshot. I'm certain that the pre-death photo of the victim is rather adequate enough (if not unnecessary) for readers to understand the murder itself. A non-free image can be allowed as long as the reasoning is valid. If the mugshot were non-free, however, I don't see the case of why a photo of the convicted is needed unless a free equivalent exists. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC); edited, 09:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, George Ho. An image of the convicted person either does or does not "help increase readers' understanding of the murder," irrespective of the image's status. If an image enhances the information value, then we should have in the article an appropriate, legitimately usable image (perhaps an alternative to this one). If an image does not do that, then the contested image should be deleted, whether it's free or not, and no other image should be used. However, since this discussion is about the 'legitimacy of the specific image, we should probably focus our discussion on that, rather than the encyclopaedic, informational value of the image. This could be the subject of another discussion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we should focus on solely the copyright status instead of the value of the image. If the copyright status is the main matter, here's my thing: Texas Department of Criminal Justice is not a federal department; the department belongs to the state of Texas. I see that the image is also seen in this website. Moreover, the department has not indicated that the image is in the public domain. Without proof of PD status, I presume the image to be copyrighted and unfree. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Dav waidhan.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: speedy deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason WP:F9. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Dav waidhan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhanwar singh vaish (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The description provided by the uploader doesn't make it clear who holds the license. Surely Google Map images cannot be uploaded to Public Domain Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:15, 12 August 2018 (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:Beyonce4reissuecover.jpg

File:Beyonce4reissuecover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dweezychang (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Easily replaceable by words and seeing the similar looking image in the main infobox for the standard album cover, removal of this is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. Section about the artwork describes it in prose successfully. —IB [ Poke ] 13:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13

File:Wikoff-map.jpg

File:Wikoff-map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Americasroof (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph of copyrighted map. —innotata 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Dr. Yogesh dube.jpg

File:Dr. Yogesh dube.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ankajtiwari (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

source claimed as "During Photo Session", dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolph-jentsch-stamps.jpg

File:Adolph-jentsch-stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Unit 5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Incorrect licensing: the copyright holder is the creator, not the person who uploaded it. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks PD to me if Swaziland stamps are PD; AFAICT, the person who took the photo is the uploader. If we can't find out the copyright status, since it's used in Adolph Jentsch we'd just need a FUR. Miniapolis 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
No indication that Swaziland stamps are PD - I could not see anything useful at http://www.sptc.co.sz. I've already tagged the commons image c:File:Adolph-jentsch-stamps.jpg as derivatives - at the end of the day there are 5 paintings by someone. Probably best to make if non-free. I note it says first day cover, so where are the cancel stamps? Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Pierre Caziot.jpg

File:Pierre Caziot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aymatth2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a non Free file. A better quality public domain file is now available at commons File:Pierre Caziot.jpg Non free Use criteria "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)" now void due to a free image available at Commons. DBigXray 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete The Commons file is claimed as public domain as an anonymous work from 1941, and is better quality. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
But if per below the commons file is not free, I suppose we should stay with the grainy press clipping here. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: The commons photo has a PD-EU-Anonymous tag - but presents no evidence that that the file was published sufficiently long ago for that license to be valid- it is sourced to ebay. No point in replacing a non-free file with a valid NFFC justification with a possibly non-free file uploaded with a dubious license and no non-free justification.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've nominated the Commons file for deletion, here c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pierre Caziot.jpg. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Al Thumama Stadium.jpg

File:Al Thumama Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non free Use criteria "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)" now void due to a free image available at Commons. File:Al Thumama Stadium model.jpg DBigXray 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep - the free image is a model of the stadium’s exterior. The image used in the Infobox is an artwork of the stadium’s interior. Typically, we use interior views of a stadium for the lead as it is the most recognisable part of a stadium to spectators inside the stadium and broadcast viewers of sports events at the stadium. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
(reply to uploader) both the images are Encyclopaedic. So The NFU criteria violation get precedence. Also There is no such Typical precedence for interior of the stadium, on the contrary mostly exterior pics are used Krestovsky Stadium, Kaliningrad Stadium Otkritie Arena Krestovsky Stadium, Kazan Arena and many more. --DBigXray 23:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Those are outliers against what is desired for these infoboxes – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Gabhanna.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Gabhanna.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daniel 1002 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploaded with claim of being own work. On Instagram the photos are attributed to YouTuber Lauren Mychal aka "Glam and Gore" as part of a professional photoshoot, and are likely copyrighted works. Daniel 1002 is a new user and there's no evidence that they are the copyright holder. DavidSSabb (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2018 (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.

August 14

File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg

File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Engineguyman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot being used in Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 3 and First-person shooter engine#Early 2010s: Graphic technique mixes. Based upon discussions at User talk:Masem#Unreal Engine 3 screenshot and User talk:Hakken#File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg, it appears that the non-free use in the former is probably OK while the use in the latter is probably non-NFCC compliant. Using non-free content in broader genre-type articles generally seems to require that the screenshot itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. Unreal Engine is mentioned by name within the "First-person shooter" article, but most of the relevant details are found in the stand-alone article as is typical WP:SS. There's really no reason per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI that a link/hatnote to that article where the screenshot can be seen is not a sufficient alternative to actually using the non-free image per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. Suggest keep for "Unreal Engine" and remove from "First-person shooter". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scope creep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged OTRS received for over 7 months. After reviewing the associated ticket, I think it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a public domain image, that was confirmed by the Mrs Rene S Stein NSA Librarian (Here she is: [1], when it was uploaded. The last I heard, the Wikipedia Foundation were in conversation with the NSA for the use of their images, for the whole Wikipedia platform. That was more than a year ago. Not heard anything back since. I tried to contact Rene around at that time, to get a OTRS Ticket fulfilled and was informed that the Foundation was talking to then. The document the image is taken from US Military document that was released by the NSA as no longer secret and as such it is public domain. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the document it comes from: [2]. It clearly states it is distributed free. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does that include commercial redistribution and modification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Timtrent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph apparently taken of a photograph in a museum, with no attribution or context for the original photo. Can't reliably flag it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it may have been a previously private photo donated to the museum. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep The file is a picture taken of a plaque in position out of doors in the Tide Mills complex, It is Fair Use because it is used for educational or discussion purposes in that a point made in it is discussed either in articles using the picture, or in the description of the picture when uploaded, or in both. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Timtrent: There seem to be two copyrights which need to be resolved here: (1) the copyright of the underlying work, and (2) the copyright of the photo of the underlying work. The latter is easily dealt with by the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but it's the former which may prove to be more of a problem to resolve. Can you provide any more information about the underlying work? For example, who created it and when they created it, etc. Did you scan it from a book or was it part of some exhibition you attended? Any clarification you can provide will help in assessing its copyright status. Its possible that it's old enough ago to be within the public domain, but this just cannot be automatically assumed.

      If the underlying work's copyright status, however, cannot be verified, then the file most likely needs to be deleted. Relevant Wikipedia policy related to non-free content has been set up to be much more restrictive than the practice of fair use/fair dealing per WP:NFC#Background and files cannot simply be kept by claiiming WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It's unlikely that the underlying work would meet WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8 even if a non-free copyright license were added for it; so, the best chance for keeping it is to figure out whether its old enough, etc. to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Al83tito (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very large non-free image (1.2Mpx). The question is keep? / reduce? / delete? I've set for no reduce for the purpose of this discussion. Allowing the facility to "zoom in", somewhat goes against NF policy. The need for text is also questionable as WP:NFC says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ron, thank you for starting this discussion of this file I uploaded yesterday. I was aware that the image was larger than usual, and in good faith I uploaded the image including within the rationale a request for an exception. So I look forward to this assessment by the Wiki community. Part of the upload justification in the file page reads as follows:
This image will be used as the primary means of visual identification of 63 persons in the article that talks about them. It would have been categorized as an historic portrait, was it not for the fact that some of the individuals are still alive. This upload is the most efficient way of providing visual identification of all 63 individuals, within just one file.
NOTE ON IMAGE SIZE: Wikipedia's Non-free content policy indicates that WP:Image resolution should be kept as low as possible. Usually it should be kept under 100,000 pixels. When larger "Images which need for some reason to be larger than this need a detailed justification given; otherwise they should be resized or deleted". This image merits an exception and here is the special justification for being larger. First, even though technically the pixel resolution is of 1293 × 925, the spatial resolution is lower than that (this was achieved with a two-step process of scanning the source book, and then taking a screen shot). Second, and more importantly, part of the purpose of displaying this image is so that 63 individuals, with their portrait pictures as well as their names, can be visible and legible respectively. A zoom-in to any one portrait in the file will demonstrate how the actual resolution per portrait is low; quite pixelated, as well as the captions under each. However, this resolution still allows it to be reasonably legible. Reducing further the resolution would render the text in the image illegible, and the image would lose an important part of its value.
Image at left has a higher pixel count than the one to the right, but is still of worse spatial resolution.
As for the pixel count, I want to draw attention to the distinction between pixel resolution and spatial resolution, as indicated in rationale above. See illustrative example to the right.
However, this is just a basic technical consideration. The core of the matter is whether this upload, which efficiently, within one single file, includes portraits of 63 individuals that are the direct topic of the article, can be kept at the size it was uploaded.
One more thing: Ron refers to WP:IMAGERES policy which says that loss of text detail is usually acceptable. I would like to posit that the only practical way to identify the image of the person, with the name, is to maintain enough resolution so that the text is legible (without needing to be crisp-- a balance I was aiming to strike in the current upload size). The usual alternative, which is to transcribe the names (and other data) and location of 63 individuals within the image, into the description of the image, seems unpractical for the readers to make sense of it in this case.
I look forward to the community assessment. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to add that I am not especially knowledgeable on the meaning on spatial resolution. There is a chance that my interpretation of it is incorrect. I am open to being disabused. In any case, the core of the rationale for inclusion of non-free image, and then its unusually large size, hinge on another considerations as outlined above. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:1984–85 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg

File:1984–85 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhino83166 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Though the fair use rationale on the talk page says "the article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work", the article is actually not about this photo - it's about the team depicted in the photo. It is certainly possible to discuss a basketball team without seeing a photo of them. B (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eastmain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo that is being used as primary identification in National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. there are two other uses claimed but one is a redirect and the other doe snot actually use the images. The primary identification is however being done performed with File:NIELIT Logo.jpg. This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a as we do not need two logos for identification. this is especially true when it is not at all clear that this is a organisational logo. The source URL provided https://www.nielit.gov.in/ doe not work. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS does resolve but http://www.nielit.gov.in/ does not seem to have this logo anywhere. As such WP:NFCC#10a is not met either. Whpq (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The organization has rebranded as NIELIT. The old logo identifies the previous brand and is still used at http://www.doeacc.info/doeacc_headquater.php but I cannot confirm that this is an official site. Another editor originally uploaded the logo to Commons where it was likely to be deleted, so I added it at English Wikipedia. When you have two identifies, one current and one historical, you need two logos. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 12:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Giovanni Feroce Handshake.png

File:Giovanni Feroce Handshake.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cameron Pearson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image has been uploaded with a claim of a PD license. The a flckr link has been provided which also shows a PD license. However, the flickr account has only this one image as its upload and was uploaded the same day as it was uploaded to Wikipedia. The https://www.feroceforgovernor.com/ web site uses a version of this image which hasn't cropped out some elements like this one. OTRS confirmation would be needed to verify permission. Whpq (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 15

File:CCAInauguralCoinObverse.jpg

File:CCAInauguralCoinObverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JAYMEDINC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
Also File:CCAInauguralCoinReverse.jpg, same uploader.

Coin is for a private organisation, and there is no evidence that uploader owns copyright to that design (front or back). There are plenty of free examples of challenge coins that can take this one's place. Huntster (t @ c) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man.ogg

File:Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adam Cuerden (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unencyclopedic. This was used on two pages, which I've removed. This is a minute-long file of silence and is pointless to keep; a single sentence can describe it fully, so having an audio player embedded for this makes no sense (there's no audio!). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Position of six new isotopes discovered towards the Island of stability.png

File:Position of six new isotopes discovered towards the Island of stability.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mani Shokoohi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Aloha from Hawaii! In this image, the 6 nuclides highlighted in orange are 265Rf, 269Sg, 273Hs, 277Ds, 281Cn, and 285Fl. In the article Hassium, 273Hs appears only in the table, while the others are not mentioned at all — in fact, the image itself has no caption or alt text! It therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. (If it were necessary, it should be replaced by a free image per WP:UUI point 11.) –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Rickygeorge.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: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Rickygeorge.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Daniel.r.george (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is claimed by the uploader as own work but is an exact crop of the Getty Images work by Stu Forster at https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hereford-legends-ricky-george-and-ronnie-radford-in-news-photo/1061944 Egghead06 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2018 (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:NSApolygraphvideo.webm

File:NSApolygraphvideo.webm (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhisperToMe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This has been up for reduction for a while - there are two potential issues with this file. (1) The overall size, which could be fixed. (2) The length - almost 8 minutes. Audio/Visual files should be short clips, normally with a 30 second maximum length or 10% if shorter. I can't see this working at a 30 second clip, I think the only option is delete. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: IMO the length should not be an issue because the vast majority of it is PD-US Government. The reason I uploaded it here was because of the Meet the Parents and Simpsons clips, which are copyrighted. The NSA article makes a commentary on this particular video, and I uploaded it as intended, 8 minutes. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on my above reasoning WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with a screenshot plus a link to the video (first choice) or Remove the copyrighted material (second choice). If this were a fully-copyrighted music video or something, then most likely we would have a screenshot of some significant piece of it - we wouldn't claim that the entire video is required for the user's understanding of the work. It's no different here - we could either provide a screenshot plus a link to the video or provide the video without the copyrighted pieces. The Simposons shots are not required for the user's understanding of the topic. --B (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - If the Simpsons and Meet the Parents stuff were removed, it could be re-uploaded on the Wikimedia Commons. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Canada 1967 Centennial Logo.svg

File:Canada 1967 Centennial Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Connormah (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is not a simple logo. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Ontario Science Centre Logo.svg

File:Ontario Science Centre Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lordoftheoats (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo is not simple... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:161125CDN Dani31583.jpg

File:161125CDN Dani31583.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SamanthaFerguson3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader asserts they are the copyright holder. This is a publicity / press release photo that has been previously published. For example https://investor.canadagoose.com/corporate-governance/default.aspx OTRS confirmation would be needed. Whpq (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Lu Xiaoman and Xu Zhimo on a punt.png

File:Lu Xiaoman and Xu Zhimo on a punt.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmglee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid FUR - It states "Lu Xiaoman and Xu Zhimo on a punt " - but the sources says 民國是一個愛出才子佳人的時期,圖為黃磊和周迅分別扮演的樑思成和林徽因 (The Republic of China is a period of love for talented scholars. The picture shows Lu Xiaoman and Xu Zhimo played by Xu zhimo and Lin HuiYing.). This picture is from a drama serial called April Rhapsody. A teleplay about the stories of Xu Zhimo, they are actors. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

August 16

Possible Copyright Violation

File:Elmos Clean Room.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 08:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Elmos Clean Room.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthias ic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The author has informed me that he has already transferred the copyright to the Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and Technology of North Rhine-Westphalia. This transfer took place before the wiki upload. He therefore demands the deletion of the picture. Matthias ic (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2018 (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.

August 17

Footer

Today is August 17 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 17 -- (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 "===August 17===" 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=855263607"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Files for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA