Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

December 15[edit]

File:Jung Joon Young in JJY Band's Tokyo concert, 2015.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image looks like it was taken professionally. No proof that uploader is the copyright holder. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 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:Razarabbani.xijinping.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that this file is not subject to copyright via Pakistani law. Also, if this file is tagged non-free, it would fail WP:NFCC#1 since Raza Rabbani is still alive. Steel1943 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly bogus public domain claim. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 21 December 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:La Horquetta Excercising Bikes.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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata does not match uploader's claim that it was taken with their phone. Metadata shows that the photo was taken by a different brand of device, and was taken about three years before the date the uploader has claimed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 15 December 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:La Horquetta Boulevard.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 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader's date claim does not match metadata. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant good day to you Sir, I am the uploader of this photo, This photo is no copyright, Reason being that it isn't matching dates is because the day the photo was taken isn't the day it was uploaded.

I uploaded it recently, But in the uploading form they asked to provide the date the photo was taken, which I did.

There is no discussion for this needed.

--TriniBarbieInPhilly (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)TriniBarbieInPhilly[reply]

The date in the description box doesn't even match the upload date in any time zone. That's a bit of a red flag there. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploaded by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Other images uploaded have claims of self-made which have been found to be copyright violations, and there is no reason to believe the uploader is being truthful about this one. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Alsee (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2016 (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:La Horquetta Regional Complex.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 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader's date claim does not match metadata. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploaded by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Other images uploaded have claims of self-made which have been found to be copyright violations, and there is no reason to believe the uploader is being truthful about this one. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Alsee (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2016 (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:LaHorquettaCommunityPool.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Last modified date" in metadata is two years prior to uploader's date claim. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - F9 http://www.sport.gov.tt/projects/capital-projects/upgrade-of-swimming-pools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeekster (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 December 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:GreenvaleParkLaHorquettaArima.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 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata date does not match information provided by uploader. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploaded by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Other images uploaded have claims of self-made which have been found to be copyright violations, and there is no reason to believe the uploader is being truthful about this one. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Alsee (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2016 (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:ArimaVelodromeAerial.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 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date provided by uploader does not match date in metadata. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploaded by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Other images uploaded have claims of self-made which have been found to be copyright violations, and there is no reason to believe the uploader is being truthful about this one. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Alsee (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2016 (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:Florida Gators logo.svg[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: to Keep the logo but restrict its use to only the main Florida Gators article. The use of the logo on any other pages is not permitted per NFCC policy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Florida Gators and 16 other articles about various individual University of Florida sports teams. A non-free use rationale has been provided for each usage, but it only seems appropriate in "Florida Gators" per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since that is the parent/primary article about the university's sports teams. Also, not sure how the "minimal usage" WP:NFCC#3 for the logo is being satisfied since 17 uses does not seem to be minimal at all in my opinion. Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the result of a compromise enforcement action several years ago: the Gator head logo was being used on dozens of articles for the main University of Florida article, Florida Gators seasons, rivalries, bowl games, championships, etc. It's important to understand that the Florida Gators family of team articles is better developed than virtually any other college sports program -- that is, there are more Florida Gators primary team articles than any other college sports program. As part of that compromise from several years ago, the editors of these articles removed the logo from all but the program and primary team articles. The logo is the logo of all Florida Gators teams per NFC#UUI no. 17, and is actually more relevant to the individual teams (which use the logo) than it is to the overall program (which does not use the logo nearly as often or as widely). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We have also diligently enforced that compromise by removing the logo from other articles whenever new editors or others have attempted to add it to season, rivalry, bowl game, or other related articles -- and I am happy to provide recent examples of same. We have upheld our end of the compromise, and continue to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I appreciate the additional information. Please understand that I wasn't questioning anyone's diligence. Wouldn't it be possible to use something more specific to each team, perhaps like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. used on their respective Twitter accounts instead? As for the compromise you mentioned above, if it was a local consensus, then I'm not sure that it would apply to WP:NFCC or WP:NFC since those are supposed to be community wide. I tried looking through the WP:NFCR and WP:FFD archives and found nothing about this particular file. Are you referring to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1 or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 39#Severe overuse problem or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47#the sportse by chance? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJ, I have never seen the Twitter account "logos" before you linked them above, but if it will resolve your concern, I would gladly accept them as substitutes for the individual team articles and call it a day. Given that they each incorporate the Gator head logo, a royal blue field, and words describing each specific Florida Gators team, there is precious little to which to object. That said, however, it strikes me as a convenient rationalization. I've been here for going on seven years, and I recognize a local "consensus" when I see one (see my comment below); major changes to policies and guidelines of project-wide application (such as the discussion that led to the addition of UUI no. 17) are usually held to a different, higher standard of meaningful discussion and consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, I did try to get a discussion of No. 17 started at WT:NFC#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17, but it got archived without anything being resolved, so maybe I choose the wrong venue. I do think further discussion is probably needed to clarify things a bit. FWIW, using the Twitter logos would eliminate my concerns about No. 17, but I cannot speak for others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reviewed the "discussion" between two participants when no. 17 was added on June 10, 2014; the discussion was not advertised as an RfC, did not solicit outside participation, there was no discussion to close per a third party, and the added no. 17 resulted from a "bold" change by a single editor with no supporting consensus. Moreover, the discussion did not contemplate the new provision's application to related sports teams, but the use of a corporate logo for commercial products of a corporate entities and/or the use of the corporate logo for corporate subsidiaries. Nowhere and nowise did the discussion among two editors contemplate the impact of this addition on established uses for related sports teams for which a given logo was the primary representation of those teams. The fact that no one has attempted to enforce no. 17 in the context of related sports teams in the past 18 months suggests that (a) related sports teams were not contemplated, and (b) if they were, editors involved in enforcement knew they lacked a strong consensus for the addition of no. 17 and sat on doing anything while the added text grew some hair on it. Either way, this is weak tea, and I am tempted to act boldly by either clarifying no. 17 in a manner to reflect the actual discussion of June 4-10, 2014, or by removing no. 17 altogether as a material change of the consensus policy for which there was no substantial input from the wider project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflict. I wouldn't say "no one has attempted to enforce no. 17 in the context of related sports teams in the past 18 months". In fact, I think there's been quite a bit of discussion (previously at NFCR and now currently at FFD) about No. 17 and team logos and the consensus was for removal. For example (sorry the links are not in chronological order), Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 65#File:FSU Seminoles logo.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg all discussed No. 17 and its application to such logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among those linked above is one example of American college sports teams (FSU), and the person who did the substitution replaced the original FSU Seminole head logo with several creative wordmarks that include "TM" symbol for trademark, i.e. a non-free image. Perhaps we should just focus on you proposed solution of using the Twitter account team-specific "logos" -- if you will upload them, I will handle the substitution for the individual team articles, the creation of proper FUR rationales for each, and the creation of talk pages with the existing restrictive language so they are not re-used on multiple related articles. Does that work for you? If so, please provide links to the newly uploaded team-specific images, and I will take it from there. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For sure they were not all discussions about American college sports teams, but it seems No. 17 was applied in all using essentially the same reasoning. Anyway, in addition to the Twitter logos I found, there is also File:Florida Gators text logo.svg which is free and on Commons; However, it's not currently being used in any en:Wikipedia articles so not sure if it's still current. Also, I have no problem with uploading the logos, adding the nfurs and then adding them to the articles. It's not too complicated to download them from the Twitter pages and upload them as png files, but I don't really know how to create svg files. If you want them to be converted to svg then I can add a {{Should be SVG}} or you can convert them yourself and then add a {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} as needed. You can also add whatever "restrictive language" you like to file talk pages or tweak the nfurs as necessary, but not sure if there's really a sure-fire way to ensure that they are not being inappropriately used in other articles. For example, 2016 Florida Gators gymnastics team was created last month, and the logo was being used there. It was removed once, then re-added, then removed again by me earlier today only to probably be re-added again by someone else in a day or so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the logo issue, the 2016 gymnastics season article itself should never have have been created -- it will most likely fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASON at AfD for lack of significant coverage. Honestly, there are days when trying to wrangle the newbies, IPs and assorted hard-heads feels like the MMORPG version of Whack-a-mole, but we're generally pretty good about patrolling our own. As for the immediate problem, I am less concerned about the PNG vs. SVG image formatting issue than I am about getting this resolved. As you said, we can simply request someone else handle the conversion after the fact. If you will upload the Twitter images, we can work together to get this resolved. I suggest you name the new files using the following pattern "Gators football logo," "Gators gymnastic logo," etc., and only use "men's" or "women's" as disambiguators when necessary, so as to keep the file names shorter. If you want to follow up on my user talk page with links, I would be grateful. As for the enthusiast who created the 2016 gymnastics article, I'll handle him: usually referring them to the restrictive language, warning them that the use is improper, and telling they are jeopardizing the use of the logo on existing articles is more than enough to get them to stop being a jerk. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJ, I just left a warning for the creator of the 2016 season article mentioned above [16], and I have watch-listed the article. If the creator re-adds the logo to the article, I will remove the image and request administrator action regarding the unauthorized use of the non-free image contrary to established consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all but main article. As far as the present nomination goes, File:Florida Gators logo.svg can only be used in Florida Gators and in none of the individual sports teams, per WP:NFC#UUI#17 and WP:NFCC#3. I don't think using the Twitter logos helps either because they are obviously derivatives of File:Florida Gators logo.svg thus falling within the scope of WP:NFCC#3 applied to that image. The question about how to deal with NFC in sport team articles in general is probably more pertinent to venues where change of policy and guidelines should be discussed, ie. not here. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finn, I suggest you accept the revised compromise offered or you are going to find yourself in the middle of a very protracted RfC challenging the present validity of UUI no. 17 and the non-consensual manner in which the guideline was revised with the input from only two editors from June 3 to June 10, 2014. Even the editor who made the "bold edit" adding no. 17 declined to "close" the discussion for lack of any real input from the community at large, and instead chose to make the self-described "bold edit." This is NOT the way consensus policies and guidelines are adopted: at best, it's no more than a local consensus of two or three editors purporting to be a project-wide policy. Any challenge would necessitate the immediate removal of no. 17 for failure to gain anything like a meaningful consensus after widespread community notice. In fact, the present compromise regarding the use of the Gator head logo had more input than the adoption of the new criteria no. 17, and it predates the addition of no. 17. Attempting to invent new rules regarding "derivatives" only adds insult to the original injury of slipping new criteria into the guidelines with virtually no discussion. Some of us have been around Wikipedia long enough to understand how such changes are supposed to be made, and this ain't it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: all I can do is to help implement policies and guidelines that are current. It does sound like UUI #17 was not added following a wide consensus - but it's a consensus nonetheless. Rather than acting against rules, I'd like to see that rule fixed. From what I'm told, it sounds like it's easily amendable, as the previous consensus was thin. In any case, it isn't very logical to complain that the previous consensus was not thoroughly discussed, and warning that any attempt to discuss it would lead to "a very protracted RfC" - in other words, strong consensus that the original decision lacked.

I'm not sure about derivatives; I'd like to hear from some of the more experienced editors (@Masem: are NFC images that are virtually identical as far as copyrightable material goes, with only elements containing no originality like text captions added, considered the same image and should be taken into consideration when applying WP:NFCC#3?). Personally, I think they are the same image, even if they are not the same file (it's not allowed to upload the same file over again to circumvent minimal use, either). They don't seem very authoritative either: they are profile pictures, not official logos. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) (modified by Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

First of all, the new language of exception no. 17 clearly contemplates the typical corporate parent-subsidiary relationship; this is not a corporate business relationship. The poorly written UUI exception no. 17 was added with no meaningful discussion generally, no solicitattion of input from the community at large, and zero discussion of the particular application to the present circumstances. And, of course, this really is NOT the situation contemplated anyway, where there is a "parent entity" logo that is also the logo of the "child entity"; in this case, the logo is the logo of the individual teams, not the logo of the parent entity. There is no parent "Florida Gators" entity, at least not in the real world; there is only an athletic department, called the University Athletic Association, Inc. (UAA), the nonprofit corporation that is administratively responsible for the individual Florida Gators teams. The teams are branded separately and differently from the "parent" University of Florida, which uses completely different logos and graphic branding for the university's constituent colleges, schools and other academic programs. Moreover, UAA does not even use the logo to brand and represent UAA -- there is no shared logo of the "parent entity"; the logo is used solely to brand and represent the individual teams that, together, comprise the Florida Gators. There is no separate "Florida Gators" parent entity. Attempting to conflate parent-daughter article terminology with that of the corporate parent-subsidiary entity language is even worse; they are two different things, and may or may not correspond to the same thing when analyzed in the context of Wikipedia articles. If you want anyone to accept your interpretation of these "rules," then you need to start playing by the project-wide rules regarding consensus. Here's what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states explicitly:

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

Nothing about the manner in which this change was adopted -- or, for that matter, the manner in which you are now attempting to enforce it -- comports with the current policy language above. Stop trying to game the system by implementing vague changes to the "rules" in the dark, with no community participation, and then trying to apply them subjectively in a manner that comports with personal preference. This is not the what the CONSENSUS policy intended. And it needs to stop. NFCC relies mostly on the good will and voluntary compliance of Wikipedia editors, and y'all are burning through your good will in buckets. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sixteen of seventeen uses of "File:Florida Gators logo.svg" have been replaced with team-specific logos in accordance with the exception to WP:NFC#UUI no. 17: "Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." I think we're done here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem with WP:NFC#UUI §17 is that the parent entity might not be what users are most likely going to look for. The parent entity might be an uninteresting holding company or an organisation like UAA. Holding companies are usually not well-known by the general public, although there are a few exceptions such as Wiklöf Holding Arena and Seven & I Holdings Co. (shops in Japan often use the name of the holding company, but the holding company is unknown in Europe). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: While I see your point of view, I stand by the principle I have presented: if you don't like the guideline, you should attempt to change it rather than act against it. I agree that guidelines in general are not as binding as policies. However, this guideline is based on the intention of NFCC#3, a policy. As for this nomination goes, my opinion weighs as much as any one editor's - no more and no less. I'm a bit disappointed that some of the most experienced ones didn't participate.

Whatever the case, WP:NFC#UUI#17 has been invoked in very similar cases, by experienced editors, and the consensus has been to remove parent logos from sport clubs' child entities: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/November#Fair use of logo. So, there is some consensus derived from the practice of enforcing this rule that goes beyond the "thin consensus" decision to add it to NFC#UUI by few editors. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finn, that's a sucker's bet; as is often the case in the backwater areas of Wikipedia where committees of two persons purport to make a "bold change" to a rule and then claim a "consensus" to enforce that bold change project-wide, any proposed change contrary to the behind-the-scenes bold change is decided upon by the same people who made the first change. How about this: why don't we have this discussion on the talk page for one of the college sports WikiProjects, and how about we notify all of the affected projects before we adopt a "rule" that purports to bind them? That would be nearly as open, honest and balanced as what your committee of two did in 2014. You don't ask the committee of two who changed the rule -- with no outside input -- to interpret the rule, and then to enforce the rule. We have complied with a literal reading of UUI no. 17 exception. Spare me the part where you re-interpret your own rule to gain the outcome you want. The prior 17 uses of the Gator head logo were just fine prior to the 2014 rule change (by 2 editors), and the seventeen different team-specific logos comply with the UUI no. 17 exception now. Until, of course, two editors change the "rule" without outside input again. Or a couple of folks chime in and say, "well, never mind what the rule says, we know what it really means."

I might also reiterate that you completely ignored what I said above -- fobbing it off with "while I see your point of view" condescension. As I explained above, there is no "parent entity" for which the Gator head logo is the official logo; the "Florida Gators" only exist as a collection of 21 teams. And, of course, the irony is that University Athletic Association has put forth variations of the primary logo for each of those teams -- in compliance with a literal reading of UUI no. 17. It's more than a little amusing when someone then claims, well, that's not good enough, we know what we really meant even if we didn't say that exactly when we re-wrote the rule with no outside participation. Of course, if our little committee of two had solicited outside input, they might have better understood that what they drafted would not apply in the way they intended, but that's the price you pay for trying to hide your rule change process from the larger community.

Some of us have been around Wikipedia long enough to understand how these games are played, and I am not some 20-something fan editor who accepts the bovine excrement thrown about in the form of "this is the rule, that's the way it is, and we're more experienced than you so we know better, if you don't like it then change it." No thank you. How about how we discuss how the purported "rule" was invalidly adopted, and why no one made any "active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others" because "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages," and not try to claim a consensus for a change that was discussed by two editors with ZERO outside input. And let's not forget that WP:CONSENSUS is policy of the highest order. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a complexity to this, I don't think that the 16 different logos pulled from their twitter feeds is still meeting NFCC (NFC#UUI#17 or whatnot). We're duplicating the same graphic with uncopyrightable additions across 16 articles.

What does exist primarily with US collegiate sports is that nearly all athletic departments have a text logo and a "mascot" logo, the former usually under PD-textlogo, the latter copyrightable. For example, UF has this gator logo as the mascot-based one, and this File:Florida_Gators_script_logo.png as a wordmark logo that is free. University of Texas has the non-free Longhorn, and the free block letter File:UT&Tmark.png. I'm only spot checking but this appears to be consistent. What is important here is that rarely the mascot logo is the subject of discussion on a specific team from that athletic department, but is a subject of discussion on the athletic department's part (Florida Gators, Texas Longhorns, etc.) What this says to me is that to best suit NFCC, the mascot logo should be used on the athletic department's page (or if that is lacking by the school, on the school's page), and the text/wordmark used on all of the specific team pages, unless there is a specialized logo for that team differing from the school's regular mark. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 17 December 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:Program Hosts.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralston Rocket on display.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:The Lamp-Don'tRub It the WrongWay.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:DVD The Lamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:The Jinn The Lamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:The Lamp Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Joe Weider America A Call to Greatness.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Peter Graves America A Call To Greatness.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sandy-Beth-Rawhide TheBrokenSpur 18639.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:IRC Logo ('86).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Henry Family in Winds of War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Class of '44 Lobby Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Peoplenextdoor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sandi Patty Finale.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Merica Special Guests.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

NOTE: I am taking the unusual step of adding four apparently missed files to this list. Same uploader, same reasons for deletion. Pinging User:CactusWriter and Permstrump to review this IAR addition. I agree to removal of any or all of them if there is any objection. If any are removed, remember to also revert my edit on the file page as well. Alsee (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaskCar 873267.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Rutherford Cravens as Ben Franklin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:JullianneMorris America A Call to Greatness.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Scott Sheldon 3rdBaseman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Images uploaded by this now-blocked SPA sock puppeteer who created numerous pages with dubious, hoax and/or unverifiable information. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney and User:Rhododendrites/Chaney for background.) Even though the images are OTRS tagged, their validity is suspect due to the same fraud that necessitated the deletion of many articles. These cannot be considered reliable and should not be hosted by Wikipedia. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a file that is an image montage, and thus needs 12 permissions for each individual image, as well as the montage creation, and this file does not have that. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my comment since it was added prior to the nominator listing all of the files after the first. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 Sorry, I didn't quite have all the images listed before your comment. You may wish to review it. (Note: The montages were displayed like that on the original external website and therefore the OTRS tag covered it.) Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The socks that posted these photos have persistently used deceptive tactics to build an elaborate online fantasy world centered around Warren Chaney to give the impression that he was a critically acclaimed and successful "behavioral scientist, writer, businessman and filmmaker." These photographs were used to lend an air of credibility to claims that we've since confirmed were either entirely fabricated or gross misrepresentations after over a week of research between at least 5 editors (see User:Rhododendrites/Chaney and the associated talk page for more details). Out of 100+ sources cited on the numerous articles within the "Chaneyverse," almost every single one was either a broken link, nonexistent or said something completely different than the statement attributed to it. Therefore I think there's considerably more evidence to be skeptical of the source of these photos and therefore the validity of our permission to use them on Wikipedia. Permstrump (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The pervasive abuse and deception involved, including some apparently Photoshopped images, makes all of the content too dubious for retention. Mass Nuke. If any cockroaches survive that, apply Raid_(insecticide)

P.S. I see additional uploaded files at Special:ListFiles/Sinclairindex. Is it an oversight they weren't listed here? Or is there some reason they weren't included? The closer should consider my Delete !vote to cover them as well, if they do get added to this deletion nomination. Alsee (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I just added the four missing files to the list. Alsee (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate User:Alsee adding the other photos. Three of them were ones that I had missed adding. I did purposely leave out the Scott Sheldon photo because it is an obvious photo from an MLB game, there is a business connection between Chaney and Sheldon that can explain how the uploader could produce a legitimate OTRS ticket for it and it is used in a valid manner. So I wasn't too concerned about deleting it. But I have no problem with it being added it to the list. Because of the extensive nature of the socking and deception, I think that deleting everything created by the account is a good idea. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recheck by OTRS showed the ticket for the Sheldon photo appears to come from the subject of the photo. However, because the "chaneyverse" investigation has continued to reveal further deception with these photos, IMO all of them should be deleted. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:20, 20 December 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:Ken Smith, Iowa-born architect.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date mentioned in information is four years different than the date in the metadata. Possible copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The uploader is claiming that the image's author is Warren Allen Smith, however, the image appears in many weeb sites, and in particular, Iowa State University provides a photo credit to Tobias Klutke for this image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 21 December 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.