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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 October 16}} 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 October 16}} 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 October 16}} 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

October 10

File:Ktvt1995logoandid.png

File:Ktvt1995logoandid.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shaggylawn65 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Decorative use of a non-free screenshot itn KTVT#As a CBS station. Although there is some discussion related to the station's switch to CBS, there is no sourced critical commentary specifically related to this particular screenshot; so, the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really being provided. The file's caption does discuss some error in the way the screenshot shows the station's city of license, but no reliable source is cited in support and there doesn't seem to be any corresponding article content supported by a reliable source; so, basically the caption cannot be verified even though it might be true and would be subject to removal as WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

I have updated the article with references from the FCC and Cornell's law school regarding a station's city of license requirement. I don't usually cite law listings, so I wasn't sure exactly how correctly to post that. I didn't think to include this previously when posting the station ID screenshot. The screenshot has been placed at the point of the new references. Hopefully this will in some way help clarify what was meant originally when I added the screenshot. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:333rdstadiumperspective.jpg

File:333rdstadiumperspective.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rebskii (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like a photo of a photo B (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Trivandrum Stadium night.jpg

File:Trivandrum Stadium night.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vishnu B Das (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image has a Youtube URL watermark on it, so likely a copyright violation B (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete- claim of being the copyright holder is not credible especially given the list of suspicious files listed in the nomination below --Whpq (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

All other uploads by Vishnu B Das

File:UST global Trivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Trivandrum port.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - web-resolution aerial photo, a higher-res version with a photo from a different angle is on some guy's linked in page
File:Trivandrum lowfloor hub.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - no idea where it is originally from, but lots of older uses found on image search
File:Trivandrum staduim arial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Stadium entrance Trivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Scania Trivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Varkala low floor bus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Trivandrum nh66.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - posted at www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1284687&page=200 in February 2018 (before it was uploaded here) crediting this Instagram account
File:Flyovers view.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Night viewmall of travancore.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Lifestyle triv.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - unlike all of the other uploads from this user, has a timestamp in the corner
File:Lulu Trivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - logo for a mall (unused)
File:Travancore logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - logo for a mall (unused)
File:Varkala renew.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Travancore mall.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Carnival Trivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Varkala flyover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - image credits www.veethi.com
File:India vs Nz matchTrivandrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - cropped from a video? It's letterboxed
File:Trivandrum stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Trivandrum City.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Varkala beach.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Nothing with any EXIF data. Many of them are letterboxed and probably cropped from a video or some other website. The images demonstrate a variety of camera qualities and skills. It seems unlikely any of the licenses are valid. --B (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all - I concur with the analysis in the nominating statement. The claim to being the author and copyright holder on these images is not credible. Some examples:
File:Trivandrum staduim arial.jpg uploaded 15 April 2018 appears in a blog post dated 14 April 2018, and a much higher resolution image exists at this site (you will need to scroll the images at the top.
File:Trivandrum port.jpeg uploaded 27 May 2018 appears in this news article dated 01 August 2016.
File:Trivandrum lowfloor hub.jpg uploaded 19 April 2018 appears in this posting with first comment on the post dated 21 April 2010.
File:Scania Trivandrum.jpg uploaded 15 April 2018 appeared in a forum post with picture credit to KEVIN SVMCHASER. Note that the image is watermarked with the text Kevin Clicks @ 2016 in both the forum posted image and the image uploaded to Wikipedia.
File:Varkala flyover.jpg uploaded 14 April 2018 is watermarked with www.veethi.com and unsuprisingly there is a veethi.com post from 17 March 2011 with this image.
It's pretty clear the uploader is not the copyright holder inthe above examples, and there is no good reason to beleive that he is the copyright holder for any of the listed images. -- Whpq (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:South Coast Martial Arts school gate.jpg

File:South Coast Martial Arts school gate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scmagym (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Web-resolution photo by blocked user. No reason to believe claim of authorship is true. B (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Joaquin Sahagun.jpg

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

Web-resolution photo by blocked user. No reason to believe claim of authorship is true. B (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Kung Fu Heroes Team.jpg

File:Kung Fu Heroes Team.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scmagym (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Web-resolution photo by blocked user. No reason to believe claim of authorship is true. B (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Town Portrait.jpg

File:Town Portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nowhereman86 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like it was scanned in from somewhere? Who took the original photo? B (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:B bhu varanasi.jpg

File:B bhu varanasi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Divya4india (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No claim of authorship, no basis for presuming that this image was uploaded by the author. B (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Order of the Arrow sashes.png

File:Order of the Arrow sashes.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gadget850 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
1950 OA Handbook cover bearing this same sash. This handbook is public domain because the copyright was not renewed.

This is a photo of sashes for the Order of the Arrow being used under a claim of fair use. The claim is that the sashes themselves are copyrighted and so it is not possible to have a free image of them. We had a lengthy NFCR a few years ago that was largely sidetracked by the (incorrect) claim that the BSA charter confers some sort of perpetual copyright on Boy Scout symbols. (This, of course, cannot be correct since it would be unconstitutional.) A 1950 Order of the Arrow handbook - available at [1] on the right - depicts the Ordeal sash basically exactly as it is. (I found another site that has a scan of much of the 1950 handbook (albeit, oddly, with a different cover) and, though it DOES have a copyright notice, conducted a search and it was not renewed.) Some argued in the NFCR whether giving a sash out to members constituted "publication", well, registering a copyright most certainly counts as publication and since they failed to renew it, the 1950 Order of the Arrow handbook (which depicts exactly this sash) is public domain. So we can take our own photo of these public domain sashes (or crop a flickr photo). (Personally, I think that the copyright was lost the first time a sash was handed out to a Boy Scout without a copyright notice. But it certainly was when they failed to renew the copyright on a published work.) B (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep-geometric shapes that don't meet threshold of originality, and already reduced so as to conform to Wikipedia standards.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo: I'm not sure you understand the reason for this nomination. The point is that the sashes themselves are public domain and we should be able to photograph and upload a full-resolution version of them. --B (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Moscowskyline.jpg

File:Moscowskyline.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mamin27 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flickr image from https://www.flickr.com/photos/skeptically/281814397/ currently marked as all rights reserved. Unfortunately, because the image was uploaded here instead of Commons, we have no evidence that it ever was under an acceptable license. B (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Tariq Imran Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinah.jpg

File:Tariq Imran Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinah.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crown Prince (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

1. The flickr image says "all rights reserved". 2. There is no evidence that the flickr user is the copyright holder anyway. B (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bhnspregame.JPG

File:Bhnspregame.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AdamFirst (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Two images here. The older one seems to be having technical difficulties and is not displayed. The newer one has no indication of who created it. B (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Screen shot Desperate Journey.png

File:Screen shot Desperate Journey.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot is used in the cast section of Desperate Journey. The fair use rationale states its purpose is "This image is being used to illustrate the article on the movie in question and is used for informational or educational purposes only." The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Taito Field Goal Flyer.png

File:Taito Field Goal Flyer.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Promotional poster for a video game. Obviously not a CC-licensed image. Possibly fair use as a promotional poster for the game? B (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free poster and added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Quester (1987) flyer.png

File:Quester (1987) flyer.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obviously not CC-licensed. Possibly valid for fair use. B (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free poster and added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:X-Day arcade soundtrack cover.jpg

File:X-Day arcade soundtrack cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not likely CC-licensed and not currently in use. B (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:ZunZun Block flyer.png

File:ZunZun Block flyer.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obviously not CC-licensed, possibly eligible for fair use B (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free poster and added a fairuse. Salavat (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

October 11

File:Yale bowl birds eye view.png

File:Yale bowl birds eye view.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hi789012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

From the uploader's private helicopter, but oddly has "Google" imprinted on it. Look on the left right at the top of the press box and on the right just below the box seat area. I never knew that the words "Google" floated in the air and were visible from a private helicopter. B (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - uploader has clearly lied about the source -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Covidean plant north haven.png

File:Covidean plant north haven.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hi789012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If the user's other upload from his private helicopter is a copyvio, so is this one. B (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - uploader has lied about taking this photo from his private helicopter in another image with a google watermark. There is no good reason to believe this image came from his private helicopter. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dcsoundtrack.jpg

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

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in The Draughtsman's Contract#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

This was originally prodded for deletion, but de-prodded for the reason shown here. Even if this is not technically a movie soundtrack album so to speak, it is still non-free cover art and still fails NFCC#8 with respect to the way it's currently being used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough the misreading of the de-prod reason. -- 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)]

  • Because the music has been recorded numerous times, showing the soundtrack cover is necessary for identification purposes and not merely "decorative." I did NOT say that it was not a soundtrack album. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • My mistake for misinterpretting the reason you gave for deprodding the file. Even so, the fact that there might be other "albums of music from The Draughtman's Contract that are not film's soundtrack per se" still is not a justification for the non-free use of this cover per WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-3. There's already a link to The Composer's Cut Series Vol. I: The Draughtsman's Contract in the film's article where the reader can find out about that album; so, it's not clear how the reader's understanding of that fact the album was re-recorded is significantly improved by seeing this particular album cover. If you feel the soundtrack album is sufficiently Wikipedia notable per WP:NALBUM for a stand-alone article to be written about it, then the cover art could be used for primary indentification purposes in that article perhaps; otherwise, there's really no need for this particular cover art to be used in film article where there's no critical commentary of it of any kind. Different albums tend to have different covers, and unless there's some sourced commentary particularly related to the choice of cover art Nyman made for the original soundtrack album and the re-recording of it, there's no real reason to see one to understand that the other exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:RussBerrieGregory.jpg

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

Uploaders photo, but what's shown is a product. FFD referral for an assessment per Commons:COM:TOYS. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @ShakespeareFan00: I'm not so sure about this one ... is it sufficiently different from public domain teddy bears as to have a valid copyright? Teddy Bears have been around for at least 100 years and I don't see anything especially creative about this one. --B (talk) 13:15, 10 October 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as DW. To B: there is obviously creativity involved in creating teddy bears. There is a lot of artistic choice that shows in the product. If you tell a dozen people to make a teddy bear, chances are that all will be different. "Teddy bear" is a category of toys, not a work from 100 years ago. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Finnusertop: yes, of course teddy bears are a category, not a single creative work. That's not the point. The point is, there are no doubt tons of different teddy bear products that are clearly in the public domain because they are pre-1923 or were made prior to 1976 without a copyright notice. I'm going to pull a number out of my rear end and say that there were 10000 different Teddy Bears produced prior to 1976 that are in the public domain. The question is, is this particular teddy bear sufficiently different from those 10000 teddy bears so as to demonstrate a spark of creativity? It honestly looks pretty boilerplate. Do a Google image search for 1920 teddy bear plush and you'll find plenty of them that look very similar. Does this bear demonstrate a spark of creativity so as to distinguish itself? --B (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:ThomasKennedy.jpg

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

Second opinion on the status wanted... If this PD as an official portrait? If so can someone update the information block ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as PD in Canada. From what I understand, Crown copyright#Canada: Crown copyright covers all works that are "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department." applies to this. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Newfoundland Hotel (1926).jpg

File:Newfoundland Hotel (1926).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Omegaman99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal, as something doesn't make sense. Title says (1926) , file description says 1940. I can't find a biography for the photographer... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 3 October 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Egyptian MIG 21s during Yom Kippur War.jpg

File:Egyptian MIG 21s during Yom Kippur War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blacktiger87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

What's the US status? My view is that URAA doesn't apply as 1996(-15 years for simple photos) is 1981 after this image was taken. The FFD refferal is for a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it the way it is: PD in Egypt and possibly non-free in US. I am not confident in guessing what the "creative work" caveat means. If you are, I'm happy to hear about your findings, ShakespeareFan00. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Hans Mustad (1837 – 1918).jpg

File:Hans Mustad (1837 – 1918).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dead link, no author details, but image is clearly pre 1918. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 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) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:StaggField.JPG

File:StaggField.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PanAndScan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image of the old Stagg Field being used under a claim of fair use. There are a gracious plenty free images of it, e.g. File:Marshall Field, Chicago, Carlisle vs. Chicago, Nov. 23, 1907.jpg. (It's a bit confusing because Marshall Field was renamed Stagg Field - but both Stagg Field and Marshall Field are the same place. (The stadium was torn down in the 50s and a new, smaller, stadium with the same name was subsequently built.) This photo MIGHT be free but it would need to be proven. Unfortunately, the University of Chicago, like most schools, claims copyright on everything they touch, so even if it was published in a work whose copyright lapsed, they aren't going to make it easy to find that out. B (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete not necessary as per B.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Firoz Khan.png

File:Firoz Khan.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Helpful14 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This si claimed as own work but is clearly a posed publicity shot. Uploader has a history of copyright violations and is claimed own work on images that are clear copyright violations. See File:Nikhil Khurana.jpg which is from a Tribune India article. No good reason to believe the claim of own work. Whpq (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Zetland.jpg

File:The Zetland.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zazou123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An image that attributes a Flickr user. I couldn't find this particular photo in the flickr user's uploads (though it is signed and is obviously from this flickr user even if he subsequently deleted it). None of his photos are tagged with a license acceptable here. The :en uploader tagged it with PD-self but that is only after first tagging it by permission only and claiming to have permission from the flickr user. So there is no evidence that this or any other license is valid for this image. B (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Stink-movie.jpg

File:Stink-movie.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gracephoto (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like Flickrwashing - it was uploaded to Flickr the same day it was uploaded here and the user (who has the same name as the director of this movie) has no other uploads. (It probably qualifies for fair use). B (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Definitely mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free poster and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Twenty One Pilots - Bandito Tour 2018–19 poster.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 G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Twenty One Pilots - Bandito Tour 2018–19 poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MikeOwen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not being used for any pages apart from sandbox. MikeØwen Let's have a nice cup of tea and a friendly chat 20:57, 11 October 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.

October 12

Non-free ogg files in Music of Athens, Georgia

File:R.E.M. - Radio Free Europe.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:The B-52's - Love Shack.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Bubba Sparxxx - Ugly.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Matthew Sweet - Evangeline.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Neutral Milk Hotel - 2 Head.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Drive-By Truckers - My Swee.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Widespread Panic - Ain't Li.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Pylon - Feast On My Heart.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Multiple non-free ogg files being used in Music of Athens, Georgia#Rock. There's probably not any need for one of these non-free ogg files to be used per WP:NFCC#8, but there's certainly no need for eight to be used per WP:NFCC#3a. Three of these files (File:R.E.M. - Radio Free Europe.ogg, File:The B-52's - Love Shack.ogg, and File:Matthew Sweet - Evangeline.ogg) are being used in other articles (either about the musician/band or the song/album), these can be removed per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC#1 since links to the other articles are more than sufficient since that is where any detailed discussion of the particular song will be found. The remaining five are only being used in this article, but again there's no need for five and there might not even be any need for even one. The relevant artists/bands are only mentioned by name and there's none of the sourced critical commentary about any of the songs which is typically required by NFCC#8 to establish the context for non-free use. If these songs are notable enough for an article to be written about them per WP:NSONG, then perhaps their non-free use in such an article would be OK; there's no real justification. however, for using them in the Athens article. Suggest remove the three files being used in other articles and delete for the remaining five unless someone can provide more of the context needed to satisfy NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Mull0329

Mull0329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
File:Umdlib2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Swensonlobby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Umdlib.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Maloskystadium.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Kirbyplaza-night.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:LendleyBlack wiki2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:LendleyBlack wiki1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Conflicting claims of authorship - this user credits the University of Minnesota-Duluth but also uses the {{self}} template. --B (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The New Cole Field House, January 2018.jpg

File:The New Cole Field House, January 2018.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amerikasmuse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The EXIF data credits Paul Burk Photography and says all rights reserved. I can't find any indication that the uploader is Paul Burk and none of his photos on Commons make me think he's a professional photographer. (Really, I think those are all copyright violations too.) B (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Killjoys Intertitle.png

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

The file is a screenshot from an episode aired on Space network -- with the Space logo watermark superimposed on the title card. The series is a co-production between Space (Canada) and Syfy (United States). However: (1) the file summary credits NBCUniversal, parent of Syfy, as the author or copyright owner, and (2) the summary credits the Syfy website for the series. The file does not match the summary/the summary does not match the file. The file may be a copyright violation. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:BJPenn2.png

File:BJPenn2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by East718 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

missing verifiable source FASTILY 06:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The primary Filckr account given as the source of this photo appears have been deleted and I'm unable to find an archive of it or the photo in question. I did find the same image being used here, but it looks like that version was upload at least two years after the file was uploaded to Wikipedia. File is also being used here which attributes it to Wikpedia. FWIW, there are a few archived versions of other photos from the Flickr account found here; some of those are released under a "Some rights reserved" license, but others are released under a "All rights reserved" license. Anyway, there are other images of Penn in c:Category:B. J. Penn (martial arts fighter). So, if the consensus is to keep this, it probably should be moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 18 September 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) 05:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Part of me wants to say it was uploaded by a trusted admin, so we accept the image on that basis - take East718's word for it that the license was correct a decade ago. I wish that the image had been uploaded to Commons where there is a flickrreview process in place to validate such things. But we can't validate that the license is correct ... so we really need to delete it. --B (talk) 19:54, 4 October 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) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera screenshots

File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guest9999 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Night at the Opera balcony.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:ANATOcontract.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Night at the Opera end.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshots being used in A Night at the Opera (film). None of the screenshots themselves are really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the article, so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really provided. The screenshots appears to be primarily to illustrate certain plot points or scenes which seems more WP:DECORATIVE than not, and is not something really encouraged for articles about movies per WP:FILMNFI. I could see using these if there were used to show some particular technical aspect of the filming process, etc., but only File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg seems to try to serve that role; that particular use, however, simply seems to be to visually support a plot description rather than technical commentary on how that particular scene was shot. If further clarification could be provided as to why these particular screenshots need to be seen by the reader other than to try and argue WP:SCENE, then perhaps such content could be added to the article and the respective rationales revised accordingly; otherwise, I cannot see how these met WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER since a textual description of the respetive scenes seems sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The images visually identify cast members and situations descrived in the plot summary, so they are illustrative and not decorative. They are also quite obviously publicity set-ups, and not stills from the film. Publicity shots were regularly taken during the filming of movies at this time, and these shots were widely distributed to newspapers and magazine for publicity purposes. Each image has a proper rationale for its use in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I referred to them as screenshots because that’s how they are licensed. Why did you license the ones you uploaded as {{Non-free film screenshot}} if you feel/felt they’re quite obviously publicity set-ups? The source you’ve cited for File:ANATOcontract.jpg does say it’s a screen capture. It shows the same image with some dialogue text at the bottom which has been cropped out of the upload. The sources for the other files seem to be dead/overwritten, so can’t say anything either way about those two. I they are PR photos, then perhaps the licensing should be changed to {{Non-free promotional}} instead.
    Regardless, being widely distributed for publicity reasons or simply used to “show” the cast members is not really a sufficient justification for non-free use in my opinion, unless there was something particular about the way they looked in the film (e.g., costuming, make-up, etc.) that might have been discussed in reliable sources at the time or subsequently thereafter. If you want to just show what they looked like then perhaps there are some free equivalent images which can be used instead.
    Now, since you’re claiming that the three you’ve uploaded are PR photos, then perhaps they were never released with a copyright notice or their copyright was never renewed. So, maybe it’s possible for them to be converted to {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Can you provide anymore information about your uploads which shows they are indeed PR photos? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no specific information about the images, but after 44 years in show business, I know the difference between the look of a frame from a film (motion blur, somewhat less than perfect positioning of the people in the shot) and a publicity set-up, where everything is set and the lighting adjusted. It's clear to me -- and, I would think, anyone with experience with these matters -- that these are publicity shots.
    As for the licensing, these were uploaded quite a while ago -- did we even have the "non-free promotional" license then? I'm not sure we did. If not, then I went with what was the closest applicable license, or at least the closest that I was aware of at the time.
    I also would like to ask: how does it improve the encyclopedia to remove these photos? Isn't that what we're here for, not to blindly follow rules, but to improve the encyclopedia? Or, to put it another way, how does it harm the encyclopedia to have these shots in the article, especially if they're promotional;? What is the animus here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 October 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) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • With the exception of File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, these clearly fail NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, depending on the perspective. Either what is being depicted is already covered by text, ie. that this and that actor is featured in the film. Or what is being depicted is not being covered by text at all, ie. that something happens in the scene on the balcony or that there is something of significance beyond dialogue in the contract scene. As for File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, it could potentially pass with sourced critical commentary. As the article says, it's a famous scene so it could be possible to find actual analysis in sources about what happens on the screen or how it was done. "[A] total of 15 people crowd[ed] into Driftwood's tiny cabin" is a complex statement. One can't quite imagine what it looks like without an image. But nothing in the article text necessitates seeing what it actually looks like.
As for Beyond My Ken inquiry about bettering or harming the encyclopedia, the criteria laid out in NFCC#8 is that the absence of these images should make it extremely difficult for the reader to follow the sourced critical arguments made in the text. That is presently not the case. It is obvious how keeping images that fail the non-free criteria harms the encyclopedia. We are only allowed non-free content that meets the stringent criteria in order to keep such content minimal. That follows from the WMF resolution wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Keeping sloppy non-free content is against everything that we stand for.
As such, remove all. File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg can be revisited when the article has sourced critical commentary of what you should be looking at in that particular scene. The question of whether these are screenshots or promotional photos is irrelevant because no one is saying that they would violate WP:NFCC#3b (Screenshots, in theory, are smaller portions of a larger work. Photos are entire works, but the resolution is not excessive) or WP:NFCC#2 (No one is going to not buy the film because they've seen four screenshots. In the case of promotional photos, yes, the copyright holder might actually want to disseminate them widely, but that does not excuse them from meeting the rest of the criteria). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Malik Khoshaba.jpg

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

All of the user's other uploads are unambiguous copyright violations claimed as own work. It's difficult to imagine that this one is legitimately a photo of his/her own family photo (that he/she inherited the copyright to) and not from a museum or something. B (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Vandalismo di Wikipedia su articolo di Brian Kemp.png

File:Vandalismo di Wikipedia su articolo di Brian Kemp.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Humor Editori Regimori (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a series of screen captures of a Wikipedia biography of a living person in a vandalized state. It could easily be considered a WP:BLP violation. It is incredibly bad taste for Wikipedia to immortalize BLP vandalism by hosting images of it. Does speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10 apply? Deli nk (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 13

File:Jabal ad Dayt

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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT 07:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Jabal ad Dayt (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Carter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:V, GEOLAND and GNG. Pin points to a location offshore of Sharm. Which is an interesting place to find a mountain. Although a 66ft high mountain is itself a novel idea... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 13 October 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:Logo of Amul The Taste of India, May 2018.svg

File:Logo of Amul The Taste of India, May 2018.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JustinJohnsonBagPack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This doesn't look like a non-copyrightable file and there is no evidence that the user has the right to license it. Take also note of the block reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of Fastrack Fashion Accessories, May 2018.png

File:Logo of Fastrack Fashion Accessories, May 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JustinJohnsonBagPack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of Himalaya, May 2018.png

File:Logo of Himalaya, May 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JustinJohnsonBagPack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which may be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of Wildcraft Accessories,May 2018.png

File:Logo of Wildcraft Accessories,May 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JustinJohnsonBagPack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of Piramal, May 2008.png

File:Logo of Piramal, May 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JustinJohnsonBagPack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Vignelli 1972.jpg2008.jpg

File:Vignelli 1972.jpg2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Vignelli 1972.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

4MPixel non-free images needs community agreement to remain. I strongly suspect that these may be the biggest NF images in Wikipedia. I also wonder if we actually need two such images Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

4MB is tiny compared to most photos... many of my photographs are gigabytes in size... Regardless, the text and font in the images (maps) are unmistakably relevant to the notability of the iconic stylized maps, and parts of the text are actually also the subject of discussion in Massimo Vignelli's article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@: Not tiny for non-free - quote from WP:NFC At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
We're looking at pixel count, not file size. 4MP = 4 million pixels. Non-free generally aimed to be 0.1 MP or less.
As for illustrating Vignelli's article, you can use closeups of the maps that are closer to 0.1MP, as used in this article [2], and have external links to the full versions (or even here {{external media}} to use in the body of the article. --Masem (t) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:NFCC#3b. The options are to reduce to thumbnail size, use closeups, or delete. Masem's idea makes the most sense. No opinion on how many images we need (WP:NFCC#3a). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A portion will not suffice, you're wrong. This is an artwork; it wouldn't be right to only show portions of a Picasso work just because it resembles the whole. Your argument is basically like having this photo at 50px or showing only the top right corner of it; it's a useless and poor representation of a work of art. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 20 September 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) 06:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@: I gave three options. If you don't like the idea of portions, you'll have to settle for a thumbnail. The default thumbnail size on Wikipedia is 220px. Given the nature of the work, it can be rendered at a larger size. The first map is currently rendered at upright=1.3, so apparently someone thinks that's enough. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 06:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion here, to choose one of those options. Yet I know that you wouldn't force a thumbnail or portion of some intricately-detailed work of art like Massacre of the Innocents, especially when the details are part of the relevant aspects of discussion in the article. We can make exceptions over this pointless and ridiculous rule. The high-res versions are easily found online! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reduce per WP:NFCC#3b and per Masem. WP:OTHERIMAGE is not really helpful when trying to justify a partiuclar non-free use; for example, "Massacre of Innocents" is not licensed as non-free content, so it's not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; this makes any comparison between the two files meaningless from a relevant Wikipedia policy standpoint. At the same time, content found on external websites is also not subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so these websites can host high-resolution content if they choose. If such content can be easily found online and WP:COPYLINK is not an issue, then using {{External media}} or adding a WP:EL to the file's page might be possible, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia also needs to host the same high-resolution versions.
    As for whether two images are needed, I think a stronger case for keeping them would be made if there was more actually sourced critical commentary comparing the two versions, or more actually sourced commentary on how the 2008 version improves on the original in the article than the unsourced claim about Vogue's requirement about preserving spatial relations between stations. I'm not sure to 2008 version needs to be seen just to support those sentences per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS; it seems that particular encyclopedic purpose for that would be better served be a direct side-by-side comparison of any parts of the maps were the difference is significant as supported by reliable sources. Basically, the current non-free of 2008 verison seems to expect the reader to closely examine it in comparison to the original and find the differences on their own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 5 October 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) 05:57, 5 October 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) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to favor reducing because closeups was met with opposition and because that would save the images from deletion. I've discussed the merits of these three options above. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, can we change the licenses to {{PD-shape}} and/or {{PD-text}} ({{PD-textlogo}})? There isn't anything here besides simple text, lines, colors, and circles. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Not without a thorough analysis. Everything is, in the end, just shapes and colors. The question is, (1) which shapes and colors can be protected to begin with, (2) are there enough elements like that for the entire work to be considered creative. See Commons:Derivative works#Maps and meta:Wikilegal/Copyright threshold of originality for logos (mostly about logos but contains a brief discussion on maps, in any case helpful in answering the question about the number of elements). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You're a little excessive. There aren't any unique elements here, and no, lines and circles cannot be copyrighted in something like a logo or map. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 Commonwealth Games Gold Coast opening.jpeg

File:2018 Commonwealth Games Gold Coast opening.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sheffieldgraduate (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Public domain mark does not confer a license. See c:Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.PNG

File:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Srnec (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Nebuly.png

File:Nebuly.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by C. L. Marquette (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lacks proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:MusicalStones2.jpg

File:MusicalStones2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JJ-Barnes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lacks proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Manpower Chart.jpg

File:Manpower Chart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P.K.Niyogi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Book scan. Copyright belongs to the IISI. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:San Telmo emblem.png

File:San Telmo emblem.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bleff (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The license on this page quotes a law that has nothing to do with copyright. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14

File:Pressphoto.jpg

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

File was overwritten without proper sourcing or licensing. Newest version should be deleted. [3] Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15

File:One black Pixel.png

File:One black Pixel.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Monocletophat123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 03:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Perpendicularn.PNG

File:Perpendicularn.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sidious1701 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 03:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Thumbsup emote.gif

File:Thumbsup emote.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BorisTM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no source, probably not simple enough for PD FASTILY 03:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Hydril Annular BOP Patent App.jpg

File:Hydril Annular BOP Patent App.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catsquisher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

US patent is from 2007; the license directly states all patents must be published before 3-1-1989 Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Magog. Patent drawings are generally in the public domain. I believe that the license template used for this and other patent images you have cited has been incorrectly modified since the time that the images were originally posted. There is no time restriction on whether patent drawings are copyrighted. I am awaiting a response from David Condrey regarding his claim that patents published after 1 March 1989 are "most likely copyrighted". I will subsequently correct the license template unless someone can substantiate the claim. —Catsquisher (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consideration on who created the image.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. See related discussions on patent licensing at c:Template talk:PD-US-patent-no notice and the linked discussions. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:HCS Aerial Shot.jpg

File:HCS Aerial Shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LeafzErikson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is uploaded as a non-free image. However, the source site indicates this image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0 which is an acceptable free license for Wikipedia. I assume it was uploaded due to copyright concerns as the subject of the photo is a building. My understanding is that photos of buildings in the UK are covered by freedom of panorama and this should actually be relicensed to CC-BY-SA-2.0 (aand maybe moved to Commons?). Whpq (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Old Deanery HCS.jpg

File:Old Deanery HCS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LeafzErikson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is uploaded as a non-free image. However, the source site indicates this image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0 which is an acceptable free license for Wikipedia. I assume it was uploaded due to copyright concerns as the subject of the photo is a building. My understanding is that photos of buildings in the UK are covered by freedom of panorama and this should actually be relicensed to CC-BY-SA-2.0 (aand maybe moved to Commons?). Whpq (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Roy Zafrani.jpeg

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

Publicity photo credited to Magic Productions. OTRS confirmation would be required. Previously published on IMDB. See https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5627599/mediaviewer/rm2828747776 Whpq (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.jpg

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coasterdude1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An unofficial, fan-made poster for the documentary which is not appropriate for the usage. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catsquisher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

US patent is from 1999; the license directly states all patents must be published before 3-1-1989 Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Magog. Patent drawings are generally in the public domain. I believe that the license template used for this and other patent images you have cited has been incorrectly modified since the time that the images were originally posted. There is no time restriction on whether patent drawings are copyrighted. I am awaiting a response from David Condrey regarding his claim that patents published after 1 March 1989 are "most likely copyrighted". I will subsequently correct the license template unless someone can substantiate the claim. —Catsquisher (talk) 15:37, 8 October 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) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Footer

Today is October 16 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 16 -- (new nomination)

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

Please ensure "===October 16===" 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=864235488"
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