Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22[edit]

File:Close Up.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: redundant extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sammy Kershaw - Third Rate Romance single.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, clearly shot at an angle from a camera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arizona Department of Public Safety[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as failing WP:NFCC#8, and probably NFCC#1 for one of the images - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. These should only be used in an article about the police but not in the generic article Arizona Department of Public Safety. The article Arizona State Capitol Police was turned into a redirect at AfD. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Capitol Police patch is worn currently and the old patch illustrates the former patch. Can't see any reason anyone would have a problem with this. SGT141 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Arizona Department of Public Safety is not the article about the police force. It is the article about something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right. The Capitol Police was absorbed into and is a part of the Department of Public Safety. The patch is worn by current members who may be seen together. It is illustrative of the different personnel encountered by the public. I think it belongs in this article.SGT141 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the Capitol Police no longer exists. The pictures should in that case only be used in an article about the historical police force. In any case, the pictures should not be used in the article about something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Let me be clear. Members of this department assigned to the Capitol area wear the patch that says "Arizona Capitol Police". Some members wear this patch and others wear the Department of Public Safety patch. BOTH are currently used.SGT141 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and SGT141: File:Arizona Department of Public Safety.jpg and File:Arizona Capitol Police Patch.png are virtually identical, differing only in the text on the patch. Is it really necessary to the reader's understanding that he or she see both of these images? --B (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bc šiauliai logo.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: redundant extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BEKO-BBL-logo-version-2010.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: redundant to File:BEKO BBL logo 2015.png. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo entente dec.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1908NashvilleVols.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a slightly better copy of the picture, see {{ShadowsCommons}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - File has been copied to Commons as File:1908NashvilleVols2.jpg NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ES2.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted, blue link is for Commons image showing through --B (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:Einstein solids 2.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Winnipeg.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to File:Crest of Winnipeg.png

Violation of WP:NFCC#1, as a free equivalent exists on Commons. Nikkimaria disputes the free status of the image on Commons but refuses to go to Commons and nominate it for deletion. So long as the file remains on Commons under a free license, NFCC#1 forbids the hosting of this image. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see current RFC and ANI discussion for background. This discussion arose because someone in the RFC asked that Fry provide evidence to support that the claimed "free equivalent" is free, but thus far none is forthcoming. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whatever the status of the image on Commons is, so long as an equivalent is hosted there, WP:NFCC#1 forbids your image(s). Either do the due diligence on Commons and nominate them for deletion, or give up your NFCC images here, you can't have it both ways. I don't have to do your job for you, you have to do it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Yes there are two images in the commons. This is not two free images in the commons, just two images in the commons. The status of these images is unknown. The two images do not contain the proper licensing. Fry1989's stance does not dispute this. Fry1989's stance is that that we should defer to the commons. The position that we should use a picture simply because it is on the commons and without regard to the license is a ludicrous position. We do not have blind faith in the commons. There is no special trust in the commons. We trust what we can verify. WP:CONEXCEPT explains our relationship in the Wikimedia foundation. We are separate projects. We are Co-equal. We decide how we operate. The French Wikipedia decide how they operate. The Commons decide how they operate. Actions taken on English Wikipedia are by English Wikipedia editors and for the English wikipedia, On the commons by commons editors for the commons, and ect. English wikipedia editors are not required are not required to be Commons editors. There is no due diligence to be a commons editors as suggested above. This whole position by Fry1989 suggests that we are subordinate to the commons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Wikipedia has already chosen how it operates in this situation as I have cited. So long as there is a free equivalent elsewhere (including from Commons), NFCC files will be deleted. Wikipedia decided this nearly a decade ago. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are free files they should be used. If there are free files specifically one the commons they should be used. No one is denying this. Seems pointless for you to mention this. However you have not linked any free files on the commons for the photo's you are trying to delete. You have linked two images on the commons, both improperly licensed, and neither with any evidence that they are free. NFCC policy applies only to when free images are available. The free images can be commons images and I would say there is a preference to commons images. But only free commons images.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have linked to them, you just choose to ignore them. So long as they remain on Commons under a free license, they are considered free equivalents. There is only one way to change that, and I've made it very clear what that is. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about that, you say they're wrongly licensed but you won't go do anything about it, Nikkimaria says they're wrongly licensed but won't go do something about it. That choice of inaction has consequences. You either go to Commons and have them deleted as improperly licensed, or you allow them to remain there under a free license, and so long as you choose the latter Wikipedia decided a long long time ago that these NFCC files have to be deleted. It's that simple. As for your last sentence, that is truly silly since in order for images to be on Commons at all, they must be free. You choose by your inaction to let them stay there under free license, you can't have it both ways because policy simply doesn't allow it. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not ignored anything, I've seen the pictures that you've linked, and I make that clear above. What I do not see is any free images from the commons linked. I see two images from the commons linked that are improperly licensed. I have seen no way to verify that they are free at all. Silly? Your position is we should not hold the Commons to the same standard that hold any other source of images. Your position that we should ignore wikipedia policy because it's the commons, that is silly. Nothing is free because it is on the commons, it's free only because it actually is free. Your position that Nikkimaria or anyone else should go to the commons or any other separate website and take some action is also silly. The commons is a separate website. Neither I nor anyone else is required to do so from any policy that you have presented or that I am aware of. Again your position is that we are subordinate to the commons and again you have offered no basis for this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring it, because you are ignoring the responsibility required here. You don't think it's really free, you have to go prove it because so far Commons has disagreed. I have explained this enough times it might as well be a million times. Mr. Granger clearly gets it, that the three of you don't doesn't mean you're opinions are superior without action. You have two obvious choices, do something about the files on Commons you believe are not actually free, or remove the NFCC files. There is no debate, there is no middle ground, policy is clear that both can not co-exist. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like you Mr Granger offers no actual basis for this other than personal opinion. There is no debate, you are correct. Free images are to be used if they are available. We just need to clear up this licensing issue. If these images are in the public domain you can easily show this. You have not done that. They are improperly licensed. The uploaders both released these derivative works into the public domain, but as derivative works they can hold no copyright claim over them and as such they can not release them into the public domain. You do not make an argument against this. You argue that because it's on the commons it must be free and the English wikipedia must ignore it's own policy. The English is not, nor has it ever been subordinate to the commons. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument, as I have tried to explain to you countless times, is NOT that the image is free because it is on Commons. my argument isn't about the images' correct status at all! My argument is that whether it is free or not, that must be determined on Commons. If it is likely that it is not, those who think it is not are obligated to initiate a DR, which can only take place on the site where it is hosted which is Commons. It may not be free even though I think it is, but so long as you and Nikkimaria leave it alone on Commons you are in essence admitting that it is free because you are either too disinterested or otherwise incapable of doing anything about it. It isn't my job to nominate it for deletion on behalf of those who think it isn't free, it is the job of those who think it isn't free to nominate it. As for Wikipedia, there is no demand that it ignore its own policy, Wikipedia's policy on this matter was decided 9 years ago and it is fairly clear that both can not co-exist. Either the image on Commons is free which demands the deletion of these NFCC files, or it is not free which demands it's deletion from Commons and which must be initiated by those who are on the side arguing that it is not. The obligation is upon you, or Nikkimaria, or whoever else thinks it is wrongly licensed. You can not have it both ways, hosting an NFCC file and ignore your obligation to deal with the wrongly-licensed image on Commons. Mr. Granger gets it, it is sad that you do not but Wikipedia made their mind up on this long ago. I never once said Wikipedia is subordinate to Commons no matter your attempt to put words in my mouth, the same as you have tried to make my argument about the status of images on Commons when that was never my argument. What I have said is that so long as a free image is available elsewhere, these NFCC files can not be hosted. So either do something about the Commons files, or they remain a free equivalent under which Wikipedia (and not Commons) demands the deletion of these NFCC images.

I now believe you are Nikkimaria are confused over the implied responsibilities here. While it is true that those who wish to keep an image must prove in the DR process that the image in question is free, the initiation of such a DR must happen by those who originally question the status of said image. So long as you abdicate that responsibility, the image remains on Commons under a free license (whether it is really truly free or not) and under Wikipedia's policy it is demanded that these NFCC files be deleted in favour of the use of the Commons alternatives. That's the rules, Wikipedia's rules: If there's an alternative under a free license, use it. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not confused at all. Your unnecessarily rude, hostile, and pointy. You offer alot of your feelings on the matter and little of substance. You'be been asked for something of substance. It's implied you say? Again could you show something? You know, of substances? Like the part of what ever you found that clearly makes this implication? 9 years ago wikipedia policy was decided? Could you link to that policy? You didn't say this. You didn't say that. You are right those weren't your exact words, however those are the implications of what you are saying. It doesn't matter if those are your exact words because that is what you are saying. The only obligation that I am aware of here from NFCC, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale." This has been done. There are no free alternatives available. There are two indeterminate pictures available. That is fact. I'm not going to ignore the facts because a pointy commons editor just doesn't like it. I see no reason that any other Wikipedia editor should ignore these facts. A commons editor should go have these deleted or better yet actually have the license fixed. But no worries, unlike yourself, I've done something productive. I've contacted the city of Winnipeg's corporate communication office a few days ago. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to be quite serious and instead I get words put in my mouth, my arguments twisted around to something they actually aren't about, and threats of a block for following what I see as an obligation of policy. The policy as I have read it says that so long as a free equivalent is available elsewhere, these NFCC images will be deleted, and that obligates me to nominate them for deletion. You demanded I cite policy and specifically a Wikipedia policy and now you act all shocked that I did what it told me to do! In the same fashion, since you believe the Commons images are not truly free, you are obligated to nominate them for deletion on Commons. If you are not confused, then you are wilfully choosing to abdicate your responsibility. I find it sad that you say A commons editor should go have these deleted or better yet actually have the license fixed. Why should someone else have to do your work for you? Why can't you do it yourself? So perhaps I'm wrong and you know exactly what is required to resolve this problem (and I'm sorry to have offended you), but you're still abdicating it in favour of someone else doing it for you which in't how things work. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is classic WP:POINT behaviour. Fry, the consensus has been against you in the ANI discussion and the discussion at Talk:Winnipeg, with the judgement being that the images at Commons are not usable here as they have been uploaded under what are obviously misleading licenses. It has been pointed out that the argument you are relying on (that En-Wiki must defer to the outcomes of Commons file deletion discussions) has no basis in policy or common practice, and in fact contradicts both. Instead of accepting this and moving on, you are doubling down on what's clearly a doomed strategy, including rehashing it a year after it was first raised. This isn't a good use of your time or the time of other editors, and you will be blocked from editing if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys demanded I cite policy, and I have done so and now you cry that I'm being POINTY. The policy states that so long as there is a free equivalent of a NFCC file, the NFCC file will be deleted. Not "should", not "ought to be", will with no room for exception. Nikkimaria is the user who disputes those files free status on Commons, and they therefore must properly nominate those files for deletion. They have chosen inaction, and by that inaction they have chosen to allow those files to remain on Commons under a free license. You CAN NOT HAVE THIS BOTH WAYS, the policy is quite clear. Both can not co-exist. You can accuse me of a "broken strategy" or being "pointy" all you want, but the policy as you so demanded is clear. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've reponded on the articles page where you have raised this as well, you have asked for policy. You still haven't mt that policy. NFCC holds that if there are free images they should be used. While you have provided us with links to 2 images on the commons (to repeat this again) these images are improperly licensed. There is no evidence that they are public domain or free. If at any point any free images are found that we can confirm are free please bring those to our attention.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are improperly licensed or not needs to be dealt with on Commons, that is what this entire mess is about! As long as you take the "It's not my problem, someone else has to do it" approach, you are allowing them to stay there under their current license, which says they are free, and Wikipedia says if you have free files from elsewhere you HAVE to use them and not host NFCCs. This is about the choice of inaction which causes this mess, when all it takes is one or two clicks of the mouse to fix the situation. I find it sad that you can put all that effort into contacting the City of Winnipeg but can't just go to Commons and click "nominate this image for deletion" which would take far less effort on your part. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no idea if the (allegedly) "free" version on Commons is really "free", but there is no reason whatsoever to use a PNG of a flag when we have a very nice SVG of it. For that matter, if the flag is not subject to copyright protection, then the PNG is not copyrighted either. The actual binary file itself is not the thing that is copyrighted - it's the flag design. If we were to determine that the flag design is copyrighted and thus the SVG cannot be on Commons, we should move it here and use it instead of the PNG. --B (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to move the SVG here we would likely need to reduce it to comply with NFCC. I would have no objection to replacing the PNG with a locally hosted, NFCC-compliant SVG version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduce it in what way? An SVG has no size in the same way that a raster image does. It has a size that you render it at, and it has a default size, but there is not the same sort of size that a raster image has. If I tell you "make a box three units wide and five units tall, paint it green", but I don't define whether "unit" means inches, feet, kilometers, etc, then you have something that is the functional equivalent of an SVG. The actual size of the box is completely dependent on what units you choose to use at the time you make the box - my instructions have no size intrinsically built into them. You could not object to my instructions and say "this box is too big" because I didn't tell you what size to make it. Similarly, size simply is not a property of a vector image any more than it is in my example. Is there any reason that anyone is asking to use the PNG other than (1) the (possibly correct - I have no idea) belief that the flag design is copyrighted and (2) the (definitely incorrect) view that we should use a png instead of an svg for copyrighted designs? There is no basis in policy for requiring a rasterized image instead of a vector one for fair use. The main reason that we require low-resolution photos is that we are not trying to replace the copyright holder's purpose for the image. If Movie Publisher XYZ publishes a high-res version of the movie poster on their website, they are doing so (in part) to get traffic at their website, not to get traffic at our website. But that concern is just completely irrelevant when you're talking about an SVG of a logo. There is no reason - neither policy nor technical - to prefer a PNG logo where an SVG exists - and there is every technical reason to prefer the SVG. --B (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think anyone is arguing that a PNG is preferable to an SVG, generally speaking - the issue under dispute here is the copyright status of the SVG on Commons. I'd be quite fine with replacing this locally-hosted fair-use PNG with a locally-hosted fair-use SVG. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Serialjoepsycho-, Nick-D, would uploading local fair-use copies of the SVG files be amenable to you? They would have the same licensing and FURs as the current local PNGs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has always been about the improper license of the commons photo's for me since joining this conversation after the RFCbot brought me to it. It would be acceptable for you to trade PNG's for the SVG's. This violates no actual policy that I am aware of or that has been presented here. Go for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that neither of you will do anything about it and take the "Not my problem!" approach. All you have to do is click the link to the Commons file, and then click "nominate this image for deletion", and then all the onus is on me to prove they are free. The amount of effort required here by either of you quite literally is miniscule, and it's bizarre to me that the both of you have chosen the obstinate path, and even more bizarre in the case of Serialjoepsycho that they are willing to go to all the effort of contacting the City of Winnipeg, writing them about the situation, asking what they have to say AND expecting a response (which I know from personal effort isn't always going to happen) but not willing to make literally two clicks of the mouse to gain the same information but placing the onus out of their hands and into that of myself and others who wish the Commons files to remain. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While still not following actual policy, I am not opposed to locally-hosted SVGs and would cease my pressure on this matter once they were uploaded. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like this discussion is basically an effort to re-litigate Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg. WP:FFD has no control over whether the Commons images are kept. (We all have Commons accounts and we can all opine there, but this is the wrong forum for attempting to decide whether a Commons image should be kept or not.) Since everyone is basically in agreement that we should use the SVGs and the only question is whether the SVGs should be hosted on Commons (as free) or Wikipedia (under a claim of fair use), there's no reason to not just delete these PNGs. (Personally, I'm not convinced that the Commons image is PD - the PD-Canada template is obviously inapplicable, so unless there is some law saying that municipal seals are public domain or something like that, I would think the image is copyrighted and the SVGs need to be moved here. But either way, we don't need the PNGs.) --B (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting the local uploads of the SVGs. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local SVGs have been uploaded and the PNGs tagged for speedy. This can now be closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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