![]() | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here edit
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation edit
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions edit
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions edit
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
May 29
File:Rafah displacement camp airstrike.webp
- File:Rafah displacement camp airstrike.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Personisinsterest (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-transformative use of Reuters image, fails WP:NFCC#2 and WP:GETTY point 7. Wcam (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but then I want you to suggest an alternative image to post Personisinsterest (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- But I would argue that this does not violate these rules. This photo is included in commentary of the article. Many reactions are explicitly based on the images and videos of the attack. This is an image from a video of the attack. And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. It’s exclusive commercial use by Reuters is already invalid. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- From Template:Non-free historic image, the
[u]se of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)
. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- It is a subject of commentary, as I said. It is an image from a video of the attack, and videos and images of the attack are mentioned heavily in reactions to the attack and this article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online.
That still doesn't the image compliant with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion. The image has to meet all criteria, not nine or less. In this case, John and Wcam, according to CNN, this image came from Reuters TV, meaning it's a screenshot. This article confirms where the image originated from. Well, it says the image came from some random video, yet somehow, Reuters requires license for commercial use.- If it's a screenshot of a random video later obtained by Reuters, or if it's a screenshot from Reuters TV, then likely the image may have very little or no commercial value. Otherwise, if it's a photo made by news agency, like Reuters itself, then most likely the image has commercial interests as originally intended, and using the image in any non-commercial way would be very risky. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- From Template:Non-free historic image, the
- Keep reluctantly – This isn't a press photo, unfortunately. It's a screenshot, and a YouTube video by Reuters channel confirms it, starting at around one minute and five seconds (1:05) of the video. Most likely complies with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion if it's made by a non-Reuters person, like some ordinary bystander recording the horrific event like this. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment — If this image is from a press agency, it should be speedy deleted under WP:F7. If it is from any other source, it qualifies as fair use. George Ho's argument appears to be valid. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
May 23
File:CLE Guards 2024 logo.jpg
- File:CLE Guards 2024 logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vjmlhds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free secondary logo that doesn't assist in the understanding of the subject and isn't the topic of commentary. It's a WP:NFCC violation. - Eureka Lott 00:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Logo introduced in 2024 to try to have more of a Cleveland feel to it (showing the Guardians of Traffic that the team is named for). It actually has a clearer representation of the team's identity than the "winged G" does to be honest, but both are official team logos. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Violates WP:NFCC#3a. If you want to delete the winged G instead then fine with me. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This adds historical context in terms of understanding the changing brand identity of the team. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 08:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
May 20
File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg
- File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Faith16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".
However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art detriment the understanding of the topic in question? Do both cover arts convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per this discussion. Deleting this will cause a disruption of detriment the understanding of the topic in question, and both covers provides both the same and the different facts. This is an alternative cover so it can't violate both criterions. The song is also inadequate without the American one, cause this is a country-specific cover, and specific covers are distinctive with global versions. This image was also displayed in a correct place. Kys5g talk! 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Imagine the article where it is used exposes to an American reader, and the reader compares its cover with the global one, and sees both covers are distinctive, would the reader understand? Heck no! Because it's missing another cover! If so, then will the global cover be subjected for deletion in the future, citing the sourced commentary and crucial identification? Kys5g talk! 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "sourced commentary" and "crucial identification" are two common circumstances, not absolute. That depends on due weight and balance.
Because it's missing another cover!
Please be careful of circular reasoning in your arguments. The WP:AADD and WP:AAIDD essays should help you learn how to make your arguments count. George Ho (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- Oh, and Wikipedia is not a repository, i.e. not a project to hold media content that lacks "encyclopedic context" to justify usage. It's not Discogs or any other sort. George Ho (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Imagine the article where it is used exposes to an American reader, and the reader compares its cover with the global one, and sees both covers are distinctive, would the reader understand? Heck no! Because it's missing another cover! If so, then will the global cover be subjected for deletion in the future, citing the sourced commentary and crucial identification? Kys5g talk! 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep because the image illustrates the credit differences mentioned in the article. Morrissey4Prez2024 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Fastily. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion edit
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
May 30 edit
File:Brad Heckman.mp3 edit
- File:Brad Heckman.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 9t5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Recording taken from Facebook Live stream, which does not indicate any license (widely available to the public for free does not equal free to upload). Recording also fails WP:NFCC#1, as person that the recording is of is still alive. reppoptalk 06:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Reppop I’ll send a message to the organization then. You know, you are able to write on my talk page *before* starting a discussion. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFCC#1. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Len Smith 1947.jpg edit
- File:Len Smith 1947.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sticks66 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free in the US due to URAA restoration. There are already other free images in the article on the player from which his portrait could conceivably be cropped, but they are all quite low resolution themselves and therefore would make for a very low resolution crop. I am not sure how that affects replaceability, since of course someone could go to the Archive where the image is kept and make a higher resolution scan. Felix QW (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Leyland railmotor no.51.jpg edit
- File:Leyland railmotor no.51.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dan027 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Undated photo of a railcar that was still in service until 1954. If the photo was from after 1945, it is still copyrighted in the US. I exchanged it at Leyland railmotor for a similar image from the same source which is dated and certainly free in both the US and Australia. Felix QW (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Grayson Murray.jpg edit
- File:Grayson Murray.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DragonflyDC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I'm concerned about the fair use claim on this copyright-protected image. He died recently, yes, but does that really suddenly mean we can use such an image? There's certainly the possibility of other images available that might be properly licensed for use on Wikipedia ZimZalaBim talk 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a free image, and AFAIK there's no "too soon" rule about uploading fair-use images. Of course, anyone with a free image can always upload it and delete this one. DragonflyDC (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- My point is i'm not sure how the deceased status of a subject suddenly provides a fair-use claim to a copyright protected image.--ZimZalaBim talk 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- As the licensing box says, fair-use images of deceased people are allowed to be locally hosted on English Wikipedia. DragonflyDC (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- My point is i'm not sure how the deceased status of a subject suddenly provides a fair-use claim to a copyright protected image.--ZimZalaBim talk 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a file of a recently deceased person, and given his profession and availability to be seen by the public, it is reasonably likely that a free file can be found per WP:NFCI. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
File:CetDlogo-SabanInternationalParis.png edit
- File:CetDlogo-SabanInternationalParis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GRPHX-TREME (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFCCP#8. Jonteemil (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no violation. It was uploaded as Non-Free and also refers to a corporate company. As a result, it helps users understand the subject. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure, to be used on BVS Entertainment, the logo must be used to identify that subject. Not another subject further down in the article. To be used further down in the article, then sourced critical commentary is needed, of which there are nothing. Jonteemil (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are other logos later in the article, and each one indicates the company's subsidiaries. Therefore, it was used for its intended purpose. Do not portray your personal point of view as a violation of the rules. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- These are not my personal opinions. See WP:Logos#Placement:
Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos should be used within an article.
I don't think the use of the logo is in line with the rules regarding non-free content on Wikipedia. A duplicate of this logo is already used on the seperate article of Créativité et Développement. Jonteemil (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- If you can use the logo in that title, replace it with this one and delete this one as well. I couldn't do it, maybe you can :) GRPHX-TREME (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I don't understand. Jonteemil (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added the logo that way because I had to. I could not use the C&D article's infobox logo on the "BVS" article. Please don't waste my time with this nonsense. If you can change it, go and change it. If you can't change it, let keep it that way. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:YOUGOFIRST is not a good argument. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added the logo that way because I had to. I could not use the C&D article's infobox logo on the "BVS" article. Please don't waste my time with this nonsense. If you can change it, go and change it. If you can't change it, let keep it that way. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I don't understand. Jonteemil (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you can use the logo in that title, replace it with this one and delete this one as well. I couldn't do it, maybe you can :) GRPHX-TREME (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- These are not my personal opinions. See WP:Logos#Placement:
- If I could use the logo in that title, I probably wouldn't upload a new one, right? GRPHX-TREME (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are other logos later in the article, and each one indicates the company's subsidiaries. Therefore, it was used for its intended purpose. Do not portray your personal point of view as a violation of the rules. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure, to be used on BVS Entertainment, the logo must be used to identify that subject. Not another subject further down in the article. To be used further down in the article, then sourced critical commentary is needed, of which there are nothing. Jonteemil (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations edit
May 31 edit
File:Gul Wareen Bacha performing at Rahman Baba's Shrine.jpg edit
- File:Gul Wareen Bacha performing at Rahman Baba's Shrine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pashtonyar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The licencing is in doubt. There are no EXIF details, but the uploader declares themself to be the copyright owner. I believe that they need to furnish proof of the right to upload this picture here via WP:VRT otherwise it cannot remain here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Overnight sensation hit record by raspberries US single side-A.png edit
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:Overnight sensation hit record by raspberries US single side-A.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This label consists only of simple text on a solid-color background and is thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. License should thus be changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the image has the old, classic Capitol logo. Well, it's tiny, but you should see it at the trademark notice. Furthermore, the shape of the logo resembles the actual US Capitol itself. I'll try to find other free alternatives if I can. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I notice it now. Could the old logo be considered de minimis, as it does not contribute as much to the label's greater significance (especially with the larger Capitol wordmark at the bottom)? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Umm.... not to my eyes, unfortunately. The Capitol Records authored the vinyl side label, confirming its authorship. De minimis doesn't apply, i.e. the old logo is anything but that. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- As promised, I uploaded this free alternative: File:Overnight sensation by raspberries Australian single side-A.png. George Ho (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I notice it now. Could the old logo be considered de minimis, as it does not contribute as much to the label's greater significance (especially with the larger Capitol wordmark at the bottom)? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
June 1 edit
June 2 edit
File:Page from Watson.png edit
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:Page from Watson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a copyrighted page (link). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Batangas city center - Plaza Mabini (statue) (Batangas City)(2018-07-30).jpg edit
- File:Batangas city center - Plaza Mabini (statue) (Batangas City)(2018-07-30).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Patrickroque01 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sculpture might not be free in the United States. Assuming the sculptor is anonymous, it is already in public domain in the Philippines by 2002 (1951+50+1 years), since it was made in 1951. But due to the WP:URAA and as a pre-1978 work of art, the sculpture won't be in public domain in the United States until January 1, 2047 (95+1 years after public display of the monument). If the applicable exception for commercial uses of public art becomes existing in the Philippines, this image can be undeleted and transferred to Commons. But until then, this image is not free in the U.S. and should be removed. Enwiki is bound to follow the laws of the United States as per WP:Freedom of panorama; the U.S. law does not provide FoP for copyrighted public sculptures and artworks. No use of turning this into "fair use" file because there is no article on the monument itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Cherbiy.jpg edit
- File:Cherbiy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rsf7589 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Cover art of less successful cover recording. Omitting the image may not impact understanding of the song originally done by earlier artist. May fail "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
File:The Adventures of Baron Münchausen (1988 Film).jpg edit
- File:The Adventures of Baron Münchausen (1988 Film).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jasc Fox (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Already one piece of non-free media on this page. No reason for this one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This poster fails WP:NFCC#3a since there is already a film poster in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Aspects. hinnk (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
June 3 edit
File:WFXZAzteca24.png edit
- File:WFXZAzteca24.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wcquidditch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
May be above c:COM:TOO Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Commons Text and basic 2D shapes with no shading would fall below the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg edit
- File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Poeticbent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File was prodded for deletion by me as WP:DECORATIVE non-free cover art because I think its use in Jean-Claude Pressac fails WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFCC#8 by me here, but it was deprodded by Liz here stating: The article where this image is used is not a biography despite the page title, it's all about this book. The file seems illustrative, not decoration. The page should be retitled to focus on the book.
I tried to follow up on that at User talk:Liz#File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg, but didn't receive a response. That's fine, but I still think this file's non-free use needs assessing because there are multiple NFCC issues associated with it.
I'm not so sure the main focus of the Pressac article is about the book as the deprod statement claimed; that, however, isn't really a discussion for FFD per se. If someone wants to move the article to "Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers" and try to justify the file's use in that article, then that's up to them. Doing so, however, doesn't resolve all the NFCC issues with the file's non-free use, at least not in my opinion.
This file actually appears to be a user-generated collage of multiple non-free images related to the book: the book's cover front and back, and some of the book's inner pages. This is a problem because even in an articles about books, generally on the front cover is allowed to be used for primary identification purposes. In this case, the same non-free use rationale and copyright license is being used to try and justify not only the cover but also the interior pages, and this seems to be wrong not only because of WP:NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#10c. If anything, the interior pages should've been uploaded as a separate file with a separate, specific non-free use rationale their use. The file does have two non-free use rationales for its use in the Pressac article and perhaps this was an attempt by the uploader to justify both parts of the file; however, one of the non-free use rationales appears just to be boilerplate text, and the other states For visual identification of one of the achievements of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article
, which is pretty much never considered a valid justification for using book cover art in articles about book authors per WP:NFC#cite_note-3.
I personally don't see how this file's non-free use satisfies WP:NFCC given the way it's currently be used. Perhaps the cover itself could be kept if used in an stand-alone article about the book, one that's either newly created or by moving the Pressace article. Even in that case, though, i don't think inner page part of the file can be justified per WP:NFCC and they should either be cropped out and the file's non-free use rationale updated with a new source for the cover image. If the letter from 1943 shown on one of the inner pages is no longer eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:Germany or some other reason, then perhaps it should be reuploaded to Commons as a separate file. The other inner page written by Pressac, however, fails WP:FREER and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES since it seems easily replaceable by either a quote from the book supported by a citation or simply by summarizing the page supported by a citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Aurora Rodrigues 1973.png edit
- File:Aurora Rodrigues 1973.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rjjiii (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Subject is still living, so the image (evidently a mug shot) fails criteria (1) of WP:NFC#UUI. Muzilon (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The image is being used for identification of the subject of the article and doesn't contribution much to understanding the arrest as described in the file's rationale. hinnk (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Criteria 1 includes, "
For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
" Aurora Rodrigues' notability is based on her post-retirement activism and writing about her experiences with the 20th-century dictatorship in Portugal. The photos are from when Estado Novo arrested her and are used prominently in her book on the events and in news coverage of her recent activism.[1][2][3] Does the exception in Criteria 1 only apply to performers? Rjjiii (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)- Comment: You seem to be overlooking the most important part item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; the part that states "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance," Are you arguing that Rodrigues's Wikipedia notability is primarily related to her physcial appearance? That doesn't seem to be the case to me, which is why a free equivalent image seems more than capable of serving the same encylopedic purpose as any non-free one. In addition, the fact Rodrigues and others have also used this particular photo in various ways isn't itself a justification for non-free use; however, if the photo itself (not Rodrigues herself but this particular photo) has been the subject of critical commentary in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, then perhaps the photo could be used in the body of the article in the section where the reliably sourecd commentary about the photo is found. Articles discussing Rodrigues which use the photo for illustration purposes aren't enough for justification; there should be discussion specifically related to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- "
there should be discussion specifically related to the photo
", you mean discussion in WP:RS? No, not in any in-depth way. Rjjiii (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)- Photos of historical or otherwise encylopedically notable events or people are not historic simply because of their association with the event or the person; so, if you add content to the article about the photo that shows it was the subject of critical commentary either at the time it was taken of in the years since, then it could possibly argued that the non-free use of the file meets both WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. However, this seems to be photo taken at a radio interview Rodrigues gave in April 2024. If that's her and she's out and about appearing in public, then there seems to be no reason why someone can't take her photograph and upload it under a free license for primary identification purposes. Now, having posted that, there might be another possibility to consider. Assuming that the country of first publication is Portugual, if there's any reason why this photo might be now within the public domain per c:COM:Portugal, then it could be possibly be relicensed and moved to Wikimedia Commons. So, you might want to ask about that at c:COM:VPC. If this file can be relicensed and hosted by Commons, it would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus no longer considered to be replaceable non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- "
- Comment: You seem to be overlooking the most important part item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; the part that states "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance," Are you arguing that Rodrigues's Wikipedia notability is primarily related to her physcial appearance? That doesn't seem to be the case to me, which is why a free equivalent image seems more than capable of serving the same encylopedic purpose as any non-free one. In addition, the fact Rodrigues and others have also used this particular photo in various ways isn't itself a justification for non-free use; however, if the photo itself (not Rodrigues herself but this particular photo) has been the subject of critical commentary in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, then perhaps the photo could be used in the body of the article in the section where the reliably sourecd commentary about the photo is found. Articles discussing Rodrigues which use the photo for illustration purposes aren't enough for justification; there should be discussion specifically related to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Criteria 1 includes, "
File:Lycos Logo.png edit
- File:Lycos Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Superseded by version on Commons. Cloudbound (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
File:BBC Today programme.png edit
- File:BBC Today programme.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfer to Commons as a {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as PD-ineligible-USonly: Commons requires that the file be "PD-textlogo" in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and in the country of first publication (which is likely the UK). The reason this file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is because the UK's threshold of originality is pretty low as explained in c:COM:TOO UK; so, even if this is "PD-logo" per c:COM:TOO US, there's no point in moving the file to Commons if it's only going to end up deleted. If someone feels otherwise, then it probably would be a good idea to ask about the file at c:COM:VPC moving the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Yingying Zhang Govt Ex 100E cropped.png edit
- File:Yingying Zhang Govt Ex 100E cropped.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LucasKannou (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#1. This file is replaceable by this CCTV excerpt depicting Yingying Zhang, sourced from NBC News[1] (which was, in turn, sourced from the FBI). CCTV footage generally does not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection and is thus in the public domain. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Trost, Rachael (June 19, 2017). "FBI Offers $10k Reward for Information in Kidnapping of University of Illinois Scholar Yingying Zhang". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 3, 2024.
June 4 edit
File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png edit
- File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
There is already non-free media representing this character in this costume in this article. No need for another. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png edit
- File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MarioHerald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Plenty of non-free media on this page already. No need for more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Cake rarities.jpg edit
- File:Cake rarities.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Taestell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Virtually identical to standard cover. Not needd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Pit render.png edit
- File:Pit render.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kazama16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image fails WP:FUR since the original article was redirected. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: "A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale." It is written in WP:FUR. And it should be allowed to use non-free image for the better understanding of the subject. Boneless Pizza! Any other issue? I would like to know. Ping me when you have a comment on this. Kazama16 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Purpose of use section along already fails WP:FUR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The non-free content is proved to be useful to readers who don't have a idea of the individual appearance. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- And you didn't somehow read number 6? You could definitely improve the rationale of that image instead of being defensive here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The non-free content is proved to be useful to readers who don't have a idea of the individual appearance. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Yurun Group (logo).png edit
- File:Yurun Group (logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
It is recommended to reselect authorization because it is likely not protected by copyright in the United States, but since the copyright protection threshold of the PRC is very low, it is still not advisable to import into commons.
It is recommended to cancel fair use and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-USonly}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Relicense: PRC isn't UK and it doesn't come from the country of kangaroo either. The protection threshold in PRC is low, I agree. However, PRC has its threshold much higher than UK but at a relatively low level. Kys5g talk! 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
June 5 edit
File:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg edit
- File:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ogggy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sample of the 1968 Cass Elliot/Mamas & Papas cover recording not an improvement to understanding a 1930s classic song previously sung by other artists before the cover recording. Doesn't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Millions of Boomers were introduced to the song by TM&TP. Keep it for a few years until more of us die off. 2600:6C63:4500:2038:14A:7545:8494:11B1 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Thanthi One.png edit
- File:Thanthi One.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P.Karthik.95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not "own work"; can't be CC0 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Know Your Enemy 2022 version.jpg edit
- File:Know Your Enemy 2022 version.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The wub (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
There's already an album cover at the article, a second one doesn't significantly improve contextual understanding per WP:NFCC8. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
June 6 edit
Toronto Blue Jays logos edit
- File:Toronto Blue Jays logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:TorontoBJaysCapInsignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Banan14kab (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The use of both non-free files for identification violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items), especially since the logo of the team is also present on the cap insignia. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Today is June 6 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 6 – (new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===June 6===" 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.