Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Total
CfD	71	71
TfD	2	2
MfD	1	1
FfD	10	10
RfD	48	48
AfD	2	2

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

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 30}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 30}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 November 30}}` 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 1931, not 1925.
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}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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.

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:

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

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

November 22

File:TimRoseAmericanSon2002FrontCover.jpg

[edit]

File does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука¹³ 09:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case, since the article on the artist is also the article on the album until such time as it has its own article (and it may be notable enough for one; I'm not just not one to devote much editing time to pop-culture material these days). See the very detailed fair-use rationale at the file page now, updated yesterday. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The use of an album cover outside of the article about the album itself is pretty much never justifiable. ✗plicit 00:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nematollah Aghasi And Andranik Madadian.jpg

[edit]

Author and date of publication unknown. License status cannot be confirmed. — Ирука¹³ 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg

[edit]

"A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946" — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the template which clearly says it is PD if: "It is a collective, audiovisual or photographic work, and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)". The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD where? — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second bulletpoint in the tag. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to fair use (or delete if not NFCC-compliant) – Under assumption that simultaneous publication (i.e. thirty-day window) isn't yet proven, totally not free in the US per URAA as the photo was still copyrighted in Zimbabwe—a member of the WTO since 1995—in 1996. Should be free to transfer to Commons on 31 December 2044, ninety-five years after first publication. If converted to fair use, the image should meet all NFCC. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think fair use conversion would be a fair decision to do @George Ho: and I'd back that. I suspect I may have got my maths wrong when I uploaded. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

[edit]

I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Laun chba ller 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think it's under the threshold of originality for maps, making it public-domain. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG

[edit]

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

[edit]

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

[edit]

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be noted first that George Ho initially nominated this file for deletion using a false claim that this song is in the public domain when it wasn't - [1]. I provided the information that it is in fact not in the public domain because it was copyrighted in the 1950s (and someone actually paid half a million dollars for the rights to publish it when it was used in the film) in the discussion, whereupon he "discovered" (as he puts it here) that it's not in the public domain. I challenged the deletion then because it is entirely wrong to speedy delete something based on false information, but here he wants it deleted again and for me to provide counterarguments here, so here I am.

This recording is without doubt the most prominent one of all the versions recorded. It won a Grammy (the soundtrack album it's in also won a Grammy), sold a million copies, and spawned numerous covers. It there is one music sample to be used in the Man Of Constant Sorrow article, this should be the one. As for contextual significance, its use can be justified per WP:NFC#CS where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. All recordings are unique, and it is impossible to correctly represent the song performance without using the actual music itself, for example its phrasing, arrangement, interpretation, the accompanying instrumentation, nuances, etc. Different recordings may also have different tunes (e.g. the recording by the Stanley Brothers is completely different to the ones by Joan Baez or Bob Dylan), so you can't actually use the scores from (presumably copyright-free) old recordings (e.g. by Emry Arthur) to represent the version by the Soggy Bottom Boys. They have different tunes. The only way you can correctly identify the song is by using the actual music itself. You certainly cannot use another versions to represent this version in the O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack) article. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both Man of Constant Sorrow & O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage of the clip in either article. -Fastily 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people ignore WP:NFC#CS that clearly states that commentary is just one of two ways contextual significance can be met, the other one is as quoted above - only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article, and I believe this sound clip meets that criterion. Hzh (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two "ways" are just common circumstances; well, there are more than two. Honestly, I don't think the article has sufficient due weight and balance to justify the file's significance to the topic in question.

Currently, it's used in the "Origin" section of the song article, according to mobile view. I don't see the section describing what the sample is supposed to demonstrate. If it were used in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section, as I suppose, the sample wouldn't make much difference other than doing the same thing that other materials are doing, like links and article text: drive readers into seeking (or buying) a full recording or other recordings of the song.

Song recognition (or identity or demonstration or whatever you call it) probably doesn't exemplify a depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject. I'm unsure why you think the content heard in the sample exemplifies the "prominent aspect" of the song, which existed and was (somewhat) notable for years before the version, or of the version itself, whose "prominent aspect" is yet to be determined. Why is this aspect "prominent" to the song?

Also, what about this: its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? You were implicitly assuming that readers wouldn't understand the very old song without the sample, weren't you? Unfortunately, reading the song article, I don't see how the sample helps readers contextually understand the song in one way or another, and I think readers would be fine understanding the whole song without the sample.

The sample is also used in the "Development and sound" section of the soundtrack article. However, I don't see how it depicts the "prominent aspect" of the whole soundtrack album itself, and I don't see how this aspect is "prominent" to the soundtrack in question. I'm reading just brief descriptions about the song itself over there. George Ho (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version, so the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect. The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song, and the most prominent version of a song would exemplify that song. I believe it was originally in the infobox, you can move it back, but it matters not, because that version is the most representative recording of the song and helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. Ideally we can add the older version (presumably copyright-free), so you can hear how the song has changed, but the old version is not representative of the song (no one sings that version now, it is no longer the same song), but the one by Soggy Bottom Boys is. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song. That's the case of using the whole recording, which automatically fails the "minimal extent of use" criterion... and the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version. Again, the whole recording. that version is the most representative recording of the song. Doesn't look like a case of a short sample but rather the whole recording.

helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. I've seen others use the same argument that what a song sounds like exemplifies "contextual significance", and sometimes the argument works only when text either contains hard-to-understand words or suffices in length to justify use. I see neither in both articles.

the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect Since it's not that obvious to you, I can't help wonder whether I already said above is sufficient. In this case, I just heard a character (or George Clooney?) sing one of verses throughout most of the sample. The sample starts with the ending of a chorus. I don't see text describing the verse itself, Clooney's vocals, background music, or anything else that makes omitting the short random sample detrimental to such understanding. Using some random portion just to identify the (portion of the) song doesn't exemplify "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself using your own criteria like using full song, text length or comprehensibility, and you should take that to the community for discussion first. Just like the way you use you own random criteria to argue for the deletion of files (e.g. chart positions of this song to determine if its infobox deserves an image) in other discussion, take that to the community first to gain a consensus before using such arguments. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. I wasn't serious about the idea. The suggestion was just sarcastic, but I see how I came across as too serious to you.

The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. A clip might or might not give a general idea about the song... or the specific recording. Nonetheless, it may not illustrate contextual significance to the topic in question, usually a song. In this case, the clip doesn't truly identify the history of the song or the song itself, which foresaw versions and lyric alterations.

Marketers use samples in shopping websites... and (old days) music shops to drive customers into buying an album containing that content or a single. Have CD-ROM encyclopedias in the pre-Wikipedia era included samples of songs? If so, what was the amount of samples per encyclopedia? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is just keep asserting that it doesn't have contextual significance, using apparent "sarcasm" to dismiss my argument. If you argument is that it's the wrong section, that is an argument for moving to a different section, your argument is not a reason for deletion. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, the use in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section wouldn't do much either except song demonstration, which isn't all what "contextual significance" (or "significance") means. If that "significance" to the topic isn't "contextual", then that "significance" shouldn't be in the project.

The non-free file must demonstrate how text is inadequate without non-free content. As I see, the text is fine to understand and grasp without non-free content, implying that the old 20th-century song itself can be already understood without NFC. The sample doesn't do much except mere portion demonstration/identification and doesn't illustrate the song (or the branding of it), which has a long history before the version demonstrated by the sample. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. Hzh (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. When have I ever done that? I read your points and thought I was counterarguing them well, including your counterargument to Fastily's "delete" vote. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to the one I didn't literally counterargue yet (It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself), then here goes: I'm not trying to ignore (or argue against) WP:NFC#CS, which is the guideline's interpretation of the "contextual significance" criterion policy. I'm either interpreting the guideline this way or using WP:GUIDES to decide whether to either follow the guideline or stick with the policy (to override the guideline).

A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. If that were true in all cases, then other samples that were deleted via FFD wouldn't have been deleted at all. Check the past nominations on .mp3 and .ogg files yourself please. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all), I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". It is the most prominent version, therefore the most representative version of the song. You appear to have your own unique interpretation of the WP:NFC#CS, adding criteria that aren't there to argue for deletion. Since you have been found trying to delete this file using false information, this file would have already been deleted if I had not bother to challenge it (few would bother to check the validity of your information, and I only challenged it because I found what you did objectionable), I don't take previous deletions as examples of anything. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly accused me of spreading "false information", which is a sordid accusation, and implies intent. When has information been "false" and intentionally "false"? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"False information" by itself does not imply intent to deceive. Someone can use false information without knowing it is false. Don't think I have ever accused you of "spreading false information". "Disinformation" is the word for false information with intent. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that that the song was copyrighted was mentioned twice in the article - by Carter Stanley, and by Lee and Juanita Moore. It suggests that you did not read the article properly to say that it was free of copyright. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative is that you knowingly stated false information to get the file deleted. So which would you prefer, being careless with facts by not reading the article properly so you can delete a file, or that? Hzh (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all). When is a music sample required to identify the "prominent version"? I was trying to point out that "contextual significance" doesn't always mean illustrating what the song sounds like, but... ah, well. You always would counter-argue just to stand firm to your views, anyways.

I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". I will move the sample if the result is "keep"; I was trying to argue how pointless the moving would be if otherwise. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole I-mean-what-I-didn't-say argument is always an interesting one. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: provided it's not in breach of copyright, I can't think of a better way of "illustrating" any song to the reader (i.e. listener) than by providing a recording or an extract of that song. But given it's current placement in the article under "Origin", and the fact that a full recording of that version is linked to in the infobox for the Soggy Bottom Boys section, one might easily argue it's misplaced and/or redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

[edit]

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука¹³ 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. The use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo which has not been found elsewhere for this defunct group. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article is barely enough to use {{External media}}. Once again - what prevents you (not you specifically, but any person) from taking your own photo of this object? And again, why, despite MOS:LEAD / MOS:LEADIMAGE / MOS:SECTIONLOC, is the image placed in the infobox, and not in the section in which it is described?

Are you sure you tried? — Ирука¹³ 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the link you provided for the org is from 2013 is that the Order went defunct in 2014. There is no longer a national office to call for a photo. But I think you are missing the point. The photo was taken by a federal employee in their capacity at the federal institution (the national museum). Copyright is, therefore, not an issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the reason.

The community is 100 years old. All of its members and their families are dead. All - all! - of the merchandise is destroyed or in Fort Knox. Am I right in understanding why you can't take a photo of it? — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't take a photo because I don't live in the country where the oraganization existed. But I don't have to because the photo is in public domain as a federal government product. Rublamb (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal employee? In Canada? — Ирука¹³ 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Canada has a federal government. Although works released by the federal goverment fall under Crown Copyright, "recent changes allow non-commercial use of Federal Government Works without permission". More info can be found at this summary by Dalhousie University, a public university in Canada. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the rationale stated by Rublamb. Responding to Iruka13's (Ирука's) point, I hope that someone visiting the museum would indeed take a clearer picture, but for now, this image will suffice. As to placement, the F&S Project prefers to use a society's crest as the organizational identifier in the top left infobox, but when this is unavailable or of significantly (~too) low resolution, we opt for images of the society's pin or key. If both are available, we then place the pin or key image against the parameter | member badge = [badge].PNG, also in the infobox, or as a thumbnail graphic in the Symbols section of the body text. Both items help identify the society and its members, and in all cases we opt for PD images where we can, or reduced-size fair use images which do not affect commercial viability. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The participant confirmed that it is possible to take a free photo. — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

File:Indian Bank logo.svg

[edit]

A low-quality fake (WP:HOAX) that is not capable of replacing the original image for encyclopedic purposes (WP:NFCC# 4, 5, 8). — Ирука¹³ 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change your own file to proper SVG file, and upload it in the old file. It would be better. VNC200 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I inform the community of a conflict of interest regarding this image between me and the administrator Ymblanter. — Ирука¹³ 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: I don't think that's a conflict of interest as the term is used on Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

November 23

File:MachineReadableIndianPassportCover.JPG

Orphaned, low quality photos of an Indian passport. High quality alternatives available at c:Category:Passports of India. ✗plicit 04:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png

The complex logo (?) is loaded over the simple one without changing the license. Not to mention that in the source it is now .svg. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EleanorDaley.jpg

Public-domain alternative (File:President John F. Kennedy Meets with Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago and Daley's Family (1).jpg) exists. I have substituted this photo's previous use with it. SecretName101 (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Man with the Golden Gun, wraparound cover.jpeg

WP:FREER — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a waste of time. FREER does not play any part in this farce. We have replaced one non-free image with another non-free image, not one iota of which comes under FREER. (Just for clarification, WP:FREER concerns itself with where "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent". Where one non-free replaces another non-free, FREER plays no part, whether in deleting the image from an article (along with other changes), or with a deletion discussion where there is no non-free equivalent). When this was reverted from the article space, it was done under the rational of CSD F7. Looking at WP:F7, I am perplexed as to what part of this rationale is relevant here, given: 1. the image is not from an agency; 2. it is not replaceable by a free image; and 3. there is no invalid fair-use claim. The rationale given for this deletion is a false and—given the context—a disruptive one. This discussion should be archived and the image should be allowed to remain on WP as a non-free image.
Although both images (the old and the new) are non-free, the new image shows the whole cover, which actually manages to show the whole book title, not less than half of it, plus aspects of the illustrations that are referred to in the text - aspects that look ridiculous without actually showing the whole cover.
I have asked user:Iruka13 why they think FREER plays a part in this, but they firstly refused to do so and since have been unable or unwilling to offer up an explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A blindingly obvious keep. See Template:Non-free book cover: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question … qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States". I can't say I like the cover much, but its use here ticks every box for admissibility under Wikipedia's rules. Tim riley talk 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although in the case of most books just the obverse would suffice, the dust cover of The Man with the Golden Gun is implicitly intended to be taken as a single work, with the obverse and reverse both containing the same information (i.e., title, gun) as part of an integral whole. Consequently, this version of the dust cover is the more representational. As for WP:FREER, it's absolutely spurious. The first sentence of that paragraph is "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." The Man with the Golden Gun was published in 1965, so even if the cover art were anonymous it would not enter the public domain in Britain in 2036; due to the URAA, there are similar implications for the United States. Richard Chopping, the artist, died in 2008, which means the cover art remains in copyright until 2079. There are no "free" alternatives available or potentially available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? — Ирука¹³ 15:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13, is there any chance you could explain yourself a little more clearly? The lack of clear communication is not helping. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can explain. Your (three) behavior. You didn't read the paragraph I refer to to the end. — Ирука¹³ 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisco, I think these comments are aimed at you. If you can understand them, can you explain to the rest of us, as Iruka13 had declined to clarify what they are supposed to mean. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the paragraph beginning "Another consideration for "no free equivalent" are "freer" versions of non-free media," you are clearly not understanding the content - and in fact I already argued against the possibility of the half-cover being used, if that is what you intend. The example provided speaks to the possibility of a dual copyright, wherein an item is copyrighted and an image of it is also copyrighted. You could feasibly have a point that one could purchase a first edition and scan the cover, thereby removing any possibility of the three-dimensional aspect incurring a new copyright (as alluded to below), but that does not remove the fact that any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do a bit more explaining. Keep in mind that this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Iruka13, but I do not understand what you mean. What paragraph? What is the link to the image supposed to demonstrate or explain? - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't look at the nickname. Wasn't replying to you. — Ирука¹³ 16:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13, Is there any chance you can communicate more clearly then. To whom were you speaking (it would possibly help if you pinged them) and what were you trying to say - they will possibly be as mystified as I am by your method of communication. Explaining more fully may help end this constant back and forth and let people focus on your perceived issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. These people are distracted by you. You removed a template that you shouldn't have removed. But now these people will learn something. In 7 days. — Ирука¹³ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t be bothered to explain why you have posted a deletion based on a false rationale, then this is going to end (rightly) with it being closed with the image retained. (The reason I removed the notice was because it's so obviously a false rationale, one I initially thought was just someone being disruptive: I am still not convinced that’s not the case, given a. the rationale is patently false, as several people have explained to you and b. you are being evasive and obstructive in not providing a proper explanation.) - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Iruka does when his images are falsely set for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 15#File:Bartaman logo 2023.png.

What SchroCat does when his images are falsely set for deletion: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑.

The people above have already tried to explain it to you three times. Judging by your reaction, they have failed. What are my chances? — Ирука¹³ 11:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? People are trying to explain to you where you are going wrong on this. Others—including me—have asked you to explain what you are on about, but you have declined several times to write a coherent response explaining why uploading a non-free book cover to replace a non-free book cover is wrong in your opinion. I am still awaiting a proper description in understandable English (and not just a link to a picture) which explains your position on this. This obfuscation and obstruction is disruptive for other users, and you need to address it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The full cover is one image with the title of the book extending from rear to front. It would not adequately illustrate the article to use half (or less) of the image. The snake's skull shown on the rear cover refers to an important plot point in the novel, so it actually provides commentary. In any case, this image follows the non-free image rules and, as others note above, no free or "freer" image is available, so WP:FREER does not apply here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the very good arguments above. Cassianto^Talk 17:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is wasting editors' time when someone whose fragmentary English is unintelligible seeks to engage En.Wiki editors in frivolous arguments. Tim riley talk 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been made aware of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Problems with obstructive and uncommunicative editor. I am not sure if this is what the filer envisaged, but the issue I see with this image is that the panoramic angle at which the dust cover has been photographed goes beyond the mere two-dimensional reproduction intended by {{PD-Art}}. Therefore, there could arguably be a photographic copyright at play, which would indeed violate WP:FREER. A flat photo of the dust jacket would serve the same purpose, without this potential additional layer of copyright concern. Felix QW (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing some clarity into the discussion (although I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained by the filer earlier). As Nikkimaria pointed out above, this is a "this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law", so I'm unconvinced this needs to be considered long. This is also in line with Chris Woodrich's comment that "any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use". - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Felix's point is that, if we were to use an image like Fandom's, the terms of FREER would be better satisfied as there would be no possibility of the 3D positioning creating its own copyright. As I mentioned above, the three-dimensional aspect could incur a new copyright (as alluded to below), which is the concern. Personally, I prefer flat views just in terms of bang for one's buck, but I know some book articles have been illustrated with 3D views on the past – generally without hullaballoo. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely prefer using the Fandom image, as it serves just as well and resolves any lingering doubts anyone might have regarding photographer's copyright. Felix QW (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sweat of the brow that would provide any basis for secondary copyright, but I've added a new version to bring this to an end. Much of this could have been avoided if Iruka13 acted in a slightly more professional manner and discussed things with people rather than refuse to explain. (By contrast, it's taken no time at all to sort once Felix QW and Crisco explained, which is something Iruka13 needs to take on board. Being obstructive when several people ask a straightforward question is not constructive; I can see why several other local Wikis and Commons have had enough of them.) - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

November 24

File:H3 Podcast logo.jpg

A simple logo was uploaded over the complex non-free logo. The license was changed to free. The non-free image should be hidden. — Ирука¹³ 06:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg

Image of unknown origin (WP:NFCC#4). — Ирука¹³ 08:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – origin of image is known, as clearly identified in the file description. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allensworth10.jpg

On the one hand, the image has an unknown publication date; and the creation date is the 1910s. On the other hand, this photo is part of the work of the Californian government, which is PD... — Ирука¹³ 17:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Mamdapur Conservation Reserve R3.jpg

The map was released in 1970 and is still under copyright protection. — Ирука¹³ 17:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

File:Mohsen-Yeganeh-Behet-Ghol-Midam.mp3

Originally F9-tagged, but it looked like fair use, so I've gone ahead and added that rationale. The mp3 is malformed, though, so I can't get it down to proper size. Without it being shortened down to an acceptable length, the fair use rationale is invalid. So hopefully someone with more audio wiz skills than me can take care of that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Length isn't the main issue. My main concern is its contextual significance to the whole song even in a non-English language. So far, I've yet to see how omitting this sample would affect such understanding. —George Ho (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png

Non-free file may actually be free: I think the original (04:12, 13 October 2024) upload does not meet the threshold of originality and should be restored and marked as such. The text on the webpage was very brief (see "words and short phrases" at :c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States § Threshold of originality) and the logos are already on Commons. A complicating issue is that the original file was repeatedly overwritten by more complex files, which may actually meet the threshold of originality. These overwrites should not have happened, as the original state of the webpage was the intent of the screenshot (described in the filename). I think the original upload should be restored and marked as free. This discussion was moved from deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 21 § File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png, pinging Aafi, Cryptic, Alalch E., Robert McClenon, Stifle, Jclemens, Hobit as involved in previous discussion). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous responses at this file's entry at deletion review
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The text on the image is well above the threshold to be copyrightable. So is the portico logo in the upper left. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The logo is on the Commons as a text logo: c:File:Internet Archive logo and wordmark.svg. I agree about the text. —Alalch E. 01:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the text on the image as it is in the most recent file is fairly long and copyrightable; however, I'm specifically requesting restoration of the first upload, which was a much simpler webpage that does not qualify for copyright. All four of the component logos are also text logos and on Commons already. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse per Cryptic~~. Restore as WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. The original 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was erroneously uploaded as a non-free work when it is in fact not copyrightable, and then it was replaced by successively more copyrightable files, as the outage notice was made progressively longer. The original notice is historically the most important, serves best as illustration, and the file should never have been "updated", which was an obvious editorial error caused by editors believing that Wikipedia should be "synchronized" with another website to deliver the latest notice from that website (???), when the image only serves to illustrate the historical event.—Alalch E. 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Question - There isn't any record of a deletion discussion or a deletion log. Is this a request to undelete a larger, higher-quality file? Also, if the purpose is to move the higher-quality image to Commons, is English Wikipedia Deletion Review even the right forum to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The revision with the full resolution 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was revision deleted subject to WP:F5: {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only. This was done correctly. —Alalch E. 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] No action. The image is clearly above the threshold of originality. Deletion of larger resolution versions was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Can you clarify what you think passes the threshold of originality? The webpage text is extremely simple and I can't imagine a court even considering a claim to copyright over a standard "we apologize for the inconvenience" message. The text logos are already on Commons, so I feel like the community there has already made a determination that they are not copyrightable. As it is the low-resolution image is not useful for its intended purpose as it is too low-resolution to read the text. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Send to FfD as there is a reasonably articulated challenge to the speedy F5 deletion of the requested revision, which may or may not have the same copyright issues as later version(s). Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Send to FfD per Jclemens. It does appear to be above the threshold of originality, but I'm not expert and worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Delete. Logo and composition of text are above the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why else besides non-free logo and composition? And which of the logos are non-free, and how is the composition non-free? The Internet Archive logo is already in Commons. Also, the composition itself is too factual and unoriginal enough for copyright. George Ho (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to the state as of 13 October 2024 and move to Commons per nom. The logos are text logos and the text included in the original upload (shorter than the progressively longer text in later files) is not copyrightable. We could make this screenshot from the Wayback Machine right now and upload it to Commons, and it would not be deleted from the Commons. But moving is nicer because it's an original historical image.—Alalch E. 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons (some revisions only) hard to fully judge without seeing other revisions. Nonetheless, as I see, the file itself contains logos and text unoriginal enough for copyright. Nothing artistic or creativity is used in text enough for copyright. The text work isn't a literary work either. Can't help wonder why the the file is perceived as non-free in the first place. —George Ho (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original uploader are probably unsure which license to use when uploading the photo. Nonetheless, from my perspective, the original file should be restored due to the file name. Because the uploader, put dates on the file which is "13th October". The restoration of the image and move it to Commons allows the image to also be used on Wayback Machine article. 2606:1A40:1035:0:211C:5C8:490F:E2BD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in song article because there is so much sourced, critical commentary in both the Recording and Background and composition sections that justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note/suggestion - If it was to be kept, it should be taken out the infobox and an appropriate caption listed which explains or uses a quote from critical commentary which relates to the portion of the song used. Additionally, the sample page needs a better description that n/a against the WP:NFCC criteria.

>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:V. Armbruster - Rochdale Hornets.jpg

Fails WP:NFCCP #1. I have added the alternative free image to the Vic Armbruster article. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of Truth or Dare.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3b as the image is high quality, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not increase the readers understanding of the topic. The scene in the image is adequately described in words, the picture does not add to this. Aside from this, the scene in the image is not subject to critical commentary or evaluation, or response from reliable sources. Its omission does not damage the subject content - images while advisable where possible, should not be taken for granted and assume that they fall under fair use (when they are from copyrighted material - music videos are non-free media) where their use cannot be demonstrated to be paramount to user understanding of the content being discussed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have disagreed with you asked me to take it down, but after your long message on my talk, I can see where this is coming from and it's okay, I understand. The image is not high quality and I'm not against taking it down. Thank you for looking into this. dxneo (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with our prior interactions. Please see WP:NFCC. Music videos are copyright media, it is illegal to share content from there. It is only classified as fair use if we can demonstrate that what is depicted in the screenshot cannot be adequately explained in words e.g. because its highly stylised or graphic, and/or its been subject to critical commentary from reliable sources. I spend a lot of time nominating media which is copyrighted - its not personal. This is only a discussion. Others might come along and determine that the content should stay. Administrators decide based on the arguments made. Its not a done deal yet :) >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work and keeping the house clean. Looking forward to working with you in the future. You the best. dxneo (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – merely shows a singer in a music video; doesn't improve the understanding of (what) the song and the music video (are about). Also contextually significant to neither (sub?)topic. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mogadishu in 2017.jpg

Image authorship discrepancy. The stated author is MrMidnimo (talk · contribs) but the uploader is Ayanl3 (talk · contribs). Clarification is needed here, as this is vague and ambiguous. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf

This file's licensing was initially discussed at WP:MCQ#File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf, but I'm bringing this up for discussion here to seek wider input from the community. The file seems too complex to be licensed as {{PD-text}} and it's not clear even whether {{PD-FLGov}} could be used instead since Florida seems allows its state universities and colleges to claim copyright protection for their works. In addition, what the uploader has posted on the file's page and in subsequent comments about "getting permission" and "requiring attribution" seem inconsistent with any type of PD licensing simply such a license implies there's no copyright to be considered. It's possible the uploader received permission from the copyright holder to use the file on Wikipedia, but WP:CONSENT would need to be verified in such a case; otherwise, it seems like it needs to be treated as non-free content which means each use would need to meet WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agnes Taubert.jpg

Was originally F7 tagged because the source is Alamy. However, I think it's really likely that the Alamy photo is just a reproduction of a 2d work that's probably in the public domain by now, but can't track down its ultimate source. If someone with more sleuthing ability than me can pin this to the timeline, we might be able to keep it/export it to Commons. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A crop of the same image can be found used here, but the work in question was published in 2023, which means it's still possible the image came from Alamy/FALKENSTEINFOTO. The same publication can be found here and the image can also be found being used at the very beginning of this this YouTube video. While I understand the concerns about c:COM:License laundering/copyfraud and don't have a problem per se with the image being further discussed here, I did try a reverse image search before tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 and only found the links mentioned above. Unless it can be clearly shown that this was previously published prior to it being uploaded to Alamy in December 2015, I don't think moving it to Commons would be a good idea because it could end up being deleted per c:COM:PCP. Even if this were to be treated as an anonymous work, it would still be eligible for copyright protection for copyright protection for the lesser of 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication if Alamy is considered to be the first publication of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alamsher LLC.jpg

An article for this image cannot appear due to the lack of significance of its subject (WP:NOTFILESTORAGE). — Ирука¹³ 17:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AEW Classic 2024.jpg

Redundant and lower quality version of File:AEW Continental Classic.png, and even if it wasn't, I think the image passes the threshold of originality and thus the licence is invalid (but not blatantly so, which is why I'm going for FFD instead of CSD) Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete both. Both have no verifiable source (WP:NFCC#10a). — Ирука¹³ 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the PNG version has been added now, thanks for bringing that up. Sceptre (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A better fair use version already exists of a file that is clearly fair use and should be used instead. This0k (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

File:Donato Francis Pangilinan8.jpg

Copyright status of this portrait needs to be determined if this is free in the Philippines (if so, this can also be free in the U.S.). While U.S. copyright law is lenient on commercial exploitations of architectures, it is not in terms of artistic works. This painting, if found to be copyrighted and pre-1977, may be unfree in the U.S. for 95 years after first publication (the U.S. copyright term for pre-1977 non-American works is longer than the Philippine term which is only 50 years). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in the description I expressed my uncertaintyamid the officers believed it is too old "I am not sure if the photo is very very old, since the OIC of the Building says it dates back to 1965, taken from the old town hall; for caution, there is also no freedom of panorama in the Philippines copyright law permitting free commercial uses of peoples' images of modern architectural and public art works without the need of licensing permissions from the architects and sculptors or their heirs." therefore I submit to the options of admins as far as US laws are concerned thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Valenzuela400: The photo you took isn't really the problem here, unless you really didn't take it yourself. The problem has to do with painting you photographed and it's copyright status. Assuming you're not the artist who painted that painting, you have no claim of copyright over it; so, the license you've decided to use for your photo doesn't apply to it. Your photo is essentially a WP:Derivative work which means that there are two copyrights to consider: the copyright of the photo and the copyright of the photographed painting. It's the latter copyright that JWilz12345 is asking about. For reference, there's no automatic freedom of panorama for 2D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) under current US copyright law as explained in c:COM:FOP US. So, Wikipedia might need to treat the painting itself as non-free content, which means the file's use will be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because it isn't 100% freely licensed content. Given the way the file is being used in Santo Tomas, Pampanga#Gallery, there's pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of this file and it will most likely end up deleted if it needs to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tan Jianci wikipedia.jpg

Reverse image search shows multiple versions of this photo along with others in a presumed photoshoot. Results go back to 2022, presumed copyvio. Kline • talk • contribs 02:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Kline: For future reference, when you come across a file that's missing source information and a copyright license like this one, there's really no need to start a discussion about here at FFD. Such files can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. In addition, when you come across a file like this which you reasonably expect to be a copyright violation after doing some digging, you can tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly Oh, thanks. I don't know anything about file CSD reasons so this helps. Kline • talk • contribs 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chatime shop8.jpg

Probable derivative work issue of the menu display. If this is OK, this should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. If not, this must be deleted even on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think next time I will take a farther distance from the menus and the like such as those in Chatime shops thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

File:San Fernando, Pampanga City1.jpg

Likely copyrighted parols as copyrightable works of craftsmanship. May not be free in the U.S.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Fernando, Pampanga City3.jpg

Likely copyrighted parols as copyrightable works of craftsmanship. May not be free in the U.S.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think next time I will take a farther distance from the crafts and the like some of those approved photos in Category:Parols thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Valenzuela400 sorry, but being "farther" is not enough. There is no concept of "de minimis" here in the Philippines, and even then, incidental appearances of copyrighted works are infringements in accordance with IPOPHL's opinion on FoP absence in the Philippines. But even if FoP becomes introduced here, parols are typically temporary in nature, so not eligible. Best option is to be more discriminative on what to upload here on enwiki. Buildings OK, but many recent public and national monuments, handicrafts, crafts like parols, and other artistic works, not OK. Even if FoP becomes implemented in the Philippines, only – at most – 90% of public artworks and of the Philippines will become eligible for Wikimedia sites, the 10% (including parols) may not be eligible. Including temporary works in the future FoP (like parols) may lead to backlash of artists vs. Wikimedia world. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zamboanga Peninsula Medical Center, Putik, Zamboanga City.jpg

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: Missed the transmission code, Speedy deleted, CSD G7 IronGargoyle (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely problematic image that came from Facebook, see my comments at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zamboanga Peninsula Medical Center, Putik, Zamboanga City.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Yes Minister - Thatcher sketch.jpg

The file is a photo showing Margaret Thatcher performing in a Yes Minister sketch. The event is well described in text under Yes Minister#Reception, and the image only serves as an extra illustration of "Thatcher performed in a YM sketch in 1984". It's omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft text.png

File:Minecraft_Logo-en.svg, a simpler version of this same 3D logo without the fractures and shading effect, is considered to be copyrighted. Belbury (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The png logo is clearly copyrighted that is obvious and there is also no need for it and it's redundant.

This0k (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OurBannerInTheSky1861 FrederickEdwinChurch 83d40m wp.png

A lower resolution copy with a half-false description. — Ирука¹³ 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Received a notice regarding this image that I uploaded. No details were provided to indicate what is proposed regarding my image and I fail to understand an unreferenced criticism about its "description" (not its use in several articles and country versions of WP), curious about "half-false" compared to "half-true" judgement without discussion and the grammatical error in what appears to be a replacement — would appreciate more details in order to discuss whatever is being proposed so it may be addressed before some action is taken. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@83d40m: Perhaps Iruka13 can clarify what they mean by half-false description. However, since a higher-resolution version of the same file is available as c:File:Our Banner in the Sky by Frederic Edwin Church.jpg, it's not clear why a lower-resolution local version is needed by English Wikipedia. In addition, it's not clear why you're claiming copyright ownership over this file since (1) the original work itself wasn't created by you and is already within the public domain, and (2) slavish reproductions (like what this file seems to be) of someone else's creative work or of a work in the public domain are typically not considered to meet the standard of creativity required by US copyright law to warrant copyright protection per c:COM:2D copying and qualify as c:COM:Own work. Creative Commons licenses typically imply the underlying work is protected by copyright and that the copyright holder of the work is making it available for others to freely use as long as they comply with certain conditions. How does of any of that apply to you and this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?Huh? Please read my reply to being contacted to participate in this discussion — your presumptions merely increase my wonder about why. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were notified of the discussion because you uploaded the file on June 1, 2021. Notification of the uploaders of files being discussed here at FFD is required per item 3 of the instructions listed at WP:FFD. My guess is that the file was noticed by Iruka13 for some reason and they decided it should be discussed; so, they notified you as they're required to do so but also as a courtesy. Finally, I'm not presuming anything. You've uploaded this file as your "own work" and even included your username in the file's name, even though the photographed work is clearly within the public domain; the photo/scan you took of the original work isn't eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. If that was just a misunderstanding, then that's OK; however, the license you chose for the file isn't accurate. If the file is to be kept it should be relicensed and its author information updated accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly fully explained my position on this issue (thanks to him for that).

I would also like to hear from you the answer to the question "why did you install a template on the file that prevents it from being moved to Commons". — Ирука¹³ 08:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is absolutely no reason to keep this png file. It fails multiple criteria.

This0k (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

{{FoP-USonly}} can only be used for architecture, but this is a sculpture. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced {{FoP-USonly}} with NFURs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Converting the file's licensing to non-free and adding non-free use rationale might take care of the FOP issue cited above by Stefan2, but it creates different issues that now need to be sorted out. A non-free image of this sculpture would certainly be justifiable in a stand-alone article about the work itself if such an article existed; however, since there's no such article, the next best option is perhaps in the article about the artist who created it as an example of their creative work. So, the file's non-free use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir is probably OK as an example of her work. The other uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall) are not so clear and just adding a non-free use rationale for them doesn't make their uses valid. Erling Blöndal Bengtsson died in 2013, which means a non-free image of him can possibly be used; however, there are probably much better ones to chose from that this particular image, and there might even be a free or public domain image of him that could be used instead. The other use in the article about the Harp concert hall doesn't, at least in my opinion, meet WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS or even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since a link from that article to the article about Pálsdóttir seem fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep in only Erling Blöndal Bengtsson or delete. Possibly, a photo of Bengtsson himself would be nice, but I think a sculptor of him is also nice. I don't see enough critical commentary to justify usages in other articles; the whole image itself (of the sculpture) not contextually significant to the sculptor or the hall that holds the sculpture there. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC); struck, 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use in the article about Ólöf Pálsdóttir could be justified as an example of her work, assuming there are no freely licensed of public domain images of her work that can't be found to use instead; however, I disagree that this would be OK to use in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson, and it would be much preferable to use a non-free photo of him instead if a freely licensed or public domain image can't be found. The sculpture is nice perhaps, but nice is an insufficient justification for the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain about Ólöf Pálsdóttir: she's already a sculptor when you identify her. Is being a "sculptor" insufficient to readers? Sure, a photo of her work can help readers understand her skills as a sculptor, but the main issue is whether the biographical article about her really needs the photo and whether readers can already understand her without an image of her work like this. Well, I've seen other cases where a photo of a work is placed in an article about an artist or a sculptor or a painter or... Well, this doesn't mean this is no exception, right? Meanwhile, maybe the Bengtsson article doesn't need the sculptor image after all? I can't find ways to counter your argument, so... well, I struck out my suggestion then. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic copyright law treats buildings and outdoor sculptures the same. Both can have a picture if said picture is not used for commercial purposes. If the template does not fit because of US laws then it just needs an Iceland specific template (come to think of it the French have the same basic copyright rule, maybe join them in one template?). The template is not a valid deletion reason. Snævar (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the image was deleted in Commons as lacking FOP in Iceland, i.e. FOP not given to buildings and artworks, unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons really just deletes FOP Icelandic and French photos because they are not allowed to keep no-commercial photos, due to foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy. They even admit to it on their own pages at c:COM:FOP Iceland. Snævar (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an Icelandic Wikipedia and this file is uploaded locally there, then perhaps an Icelandic specific template could be made to work. However, since the servers for English Wikipedia are located in the US, English Wikipedia goes by US copyright law. This means c:COM:FOP US matters here and there's no freedom of panorama for 3D works publicly displayed in the US. So, the sculpture imagery needs to be treated as non-free for any photo of it to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is a non-free photo. I guess what I am saying is that "Template:Non-free 3D art" is sufficent for the image. It's use is allowed per US laws in article 107 (fair use doctrine). Then due to the Berne Convention and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy the local laws matter too - which in this case is Iceland. In Iceland, the use is allowed as an non-free photo based on article 16 of the Icelandic copyright act - it says that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes (c:COM:FOP Iceland) and article 14, which is similar but more restrictive than article 107 in the US, allows use for criticism purposes. Snævar (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free content needs to meet Wikipedia' non-free content use policy. Non-free content needs to have an acceptable non-free copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation. Changing the file's license to {{Non-free 3D art}} is fine for the copyright license part, but adding a non-free copyright license in and of itself doesn't make a file automatically policy compliant. The non-free use rationale part of equation also needs to be valid as explained in WP:NFCCE, and "valid" in this content means the use meets all ten of the criteria listed here. I think that could be possible for the file's use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir, but not really possible for the uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall). So, none of the discussion related to the non-free use of the file has really anything to do with Iceland's FOP. What matters is whether the consensus established here is that there's at least one way to currently use the file in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If there is, the file can be kept; if there isn't the file will end up deleted per WP:NFCC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#10c requires that the FUR must be relevant to the use, but none of the FURs seem relevant to the use of the picture.

The use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir looks fine. Usually we allow a small number of non-free pictures of works by an artist or sculptor if no free pictures exist.

I don't think that the picture is needed in Harpa (concert hall).

Erling Blöndal Bengtsson is dead. If no free pictures exist, we often allow a non-free picture. However, are we certain that there is no free picture? He lived for a long time in Denmark, and there is {{PD-Denmark50}} which provides a short copyright term for many photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Danish photo may still be copyrightable outside Denmark, even when fifty years passed ~~after author's lifetime~~, if the photo was still copyrighted in 1996. George Ho (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Denmark, the copyright to a photo expires 50 years after it was taken (not 50 years after the death of the photographer), or 25 years after it was taken if taken before 1970. Photos taken before 1970 and first published in Denmark are ineligible for URAA restoration, but may have a subsisting copyright. Presumably, most pre-1970 Danish photos are in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot! I didn't read further! —George Ho (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Easybeats - Friday On My Mind excerpt.ogg

Sample's contextual significance to the whole song and the band who performed the content heard in the sample questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susan Smith (SC convict).png

Person still alive. E_F⁵ 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is generally an exception for people who have life in prison, as the same reasons for dead people apply - they are completely inaccessible to the public so it is impossible for a free image to be taken. See Lucy Letby for example. So keep, I suppose (she does have a theoretical chance of parole but given how high profile this case was... doubtful. But maybe weak keep given that) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

File:Command post of 233rd Guards Artillery Regiment at Battle of Kursk.jpg

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука¹³ 15:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:44th rifle elite.jpg

There is no information about the publication date and the author, which is necessary for {{PD-Ukraine}}. — Ирука¹³ 17:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Backboard shattering.jpeg

Procedural filing to seek wider community input to settle disagreement over the validity of speedy deletion.

Keep: Both myself and an administrator who is knowledgeable, experienced, and familiar with the basketball topic area have explained on the file talk page why this image and its usage thereof satisfies the WP:NFCC#1 fair use criteria. Left guide (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please tell us how you searched for the image for this article? — Ирука¹³ 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By searching "backboard shattering" on Flickr. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't searched in other search engines that can search for images with a free license? — Ирука¹³ 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be straightforward if someone can identify an actual suitable free equivalent. —Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background The prior speedy deletion–related discussion is at File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg § Tag—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an expert and barely know much about Basketball but if it's a rare occurrence and no free equivalent can be found then it should be kept. If the person who proposed this deletion or another person wants to find a picture of this that is free to use then they should do so and then replace the file but if it can't be replaced then that sort of speaks for itself.

This0k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was obvious... but I have to repeat what was said on the file's discussion page:
Anyone can buy their own object at any time and smash it with a rock wrapped in a basket-ball.
Anyone can order a less durable object and smash it with a regular ball.
Anyone can install a camera aimed at filming an ordinary shield – sooner or later it will be smashed.
There are thousands of such shields in the world, thousands of reporters with thousands of cameras watch the games.
Anyone can order or draw a highly realistic photo- or 3D image themselves.
All of the above will carry equal encyclopedic information content.
Here, there was not even an attempt at a more advanced search, there was no attempt to negotiate with photographers to change their license, there was no attempt to find or create an image using our Wikipedia community.
This photo does not correspond at all to the spirit or letter of WP:NFCC.
This is not an eruption of Vesuvius, not a dead person, or a person sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum-security prison. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a response to my CSD post at File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg, so I'll repeat it here:

I think backboards are more or less shatterproof now, so I believe it requires skilled demolition techniques to recreate. As for 3D/AI images, I said "I'm not aware" of their use on WP, so feel free to provide past examples of NFCC being denied on those grounds (It just seems we'd rarely need NFCC then if we're content with "fake" image replacement).

—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clearly important to the article regardless so should be kept if no free equivalent is found. This0k (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image currently placed also showcases what the topic of the article is very well and putting a 3D image would just look terrible. This0k (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

File:Ursula Haverbeck.jpeg

That image is not Ursula. It's a Nazi cosplayer. This has been argued about and resolved thoroughly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Colorization/comments/s66o6b/i_mistakenly_colorized_this_picture_thinking_it/ Absolutiva (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The discussion at https://www.open.online/2024/11/29/falsa-foto-ursula-haverbeck-giovane-fc/ (in Italian) is convincing. --Cyfal (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The girl in that photo is a known troll and it's surprising people keep falling for that picture even after all these years. This0k (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Greyhound Cesarewitch Trophy.jpg

This file is a derivative work incorporating another work (Trophy). While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work. — Ирука¹³ 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikimedia Commons It is their picture of a trophy. It belongs to THEM. The only thing I don't understand is why it is on Wikipedia when it is theirs and they have the right to do with it what they will, it's better off on Commons.

This0k (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo of a trophy so I don't understand what the issue is?. If I think what you are saying is that the trophy itself is a copyright, then that is just strange. That means any photo of anything such as a statue or building etc is not allowed. Most of the photos on Wikipedia fall under this category. ApricotFoot (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Ирука¹³ 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to Wikimedia Commons as it is your file and there's no copyright attached to it. This0k (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trophy is 96 years old with no known name of a designer and therefore no copyright exists anyway. Furthermore the company that owned it no longer exists either. P.S. What is the difference with these? File:World Series Trophy (48262268286).jpg and File:The FA Cup Trophy.jpg ApricotFoot (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I am blocked on Wikimedia Commons. — Ирука¹³ 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

File:AMPGroup.png

Not all images in this collage are freely licensed. The first two sources linked ([2][3]) are reuploads of the original videos (which are not licensed under CC-BY-3.0), and are thus non-free derivative works. C F A 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is November 30 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 30 – (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 "===November 30===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

November 23

Recent nominations

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29

November 30

Footer