Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

File:Philadelphia Fire patch.png

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: keep and update File:PhiladelphiaFire.png, delete the remaining two. — ξ ^xplicit 06:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three non-free images are being used in Philadelphia Fire Department: File:PhiladelphiaFire.png, File:Philadelphia Fire patch.png, File:Philadelphia Fire ladder 23 patch.png. None of the images are provided with a source, other than a generic "Philadelphia Fire Department" so it's not clear where they came from. . The use of one non-free image in the infobox seems to be fine to serve as the primary means of identification. The "Fire ladder 23" patch should be removed per WP:NFCC#8 since it's for a single ladder company, and its usage is purely decorative. The remaining two look different, but the design is essentially the same and they basically provide the same information. They are also different from the logo currently being used on the department's official website. Only one of the two seem necessary per WP:NFCC#3a and the other should also be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say ... these were all loaded nine years ago. The source for all of them was the official website of the PFD. Lord knows what that URL was nine years ago. Today, it's http://www.phila.gov/fire .

Second, if any were deleted, I would say that it should be the black and gold departmental patch, though I do think that patch adds dimension to the logo on the top of the page. The "Fire ladder 23" patch is in the section about the stations. This patch is distinctive as it is the Chinatown Station, the house of Dragons.

Thanks, --evrik ^(talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Fire Ladder 23" patch is distinctive and it would probably be acceptable if used in the infobox of a stand-alone article about the ladder company; However, just adding it to what is essentially an embedded list of fire stations in which neither the ladder company or the patch itself is the subject of any kind of sourced critical commentary means the patch is primarily decorative and does not really satisfy WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFLISTS. The reader's understanding of the Philadelphia fire department is not significantly improved by seeing the image and removing the image cannot be detrimental to the reader's understanding of something that is not being discussed at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete all three and upload http://www.phila.gov/fire/images/logo.jpg instead? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For two of them maybe, but the house of dragons should stay. --evrik ^(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that the current usage of the "House of Dragons" still does not satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCC. As as I said above, "being distinctive" in and of itself is not enough for a non-free image. Per WP:NFCCE, "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" and decorative usage for a single entry in a list of other fire stations is something generally not considered accpetable per NFLISTS and NFCC#8.-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 11 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:Moldova FA.svg

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: keep in Moldovan Football Federation, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 06:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Football Association of Moldova, Moldova national football team, Moldova women's national football team, Moldovan Cup, Moldovan "B" Division, and Moldovan "A" Division. A non-free use rationale is provide for each use, but only the usage in the "Football Association of Moldova" seems appropriate. Usage in the two team individual team articles does not seem acceptable per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, but the image should definitely not be being used in "Moldovan Cup" or either of the two "Moldolvan Division" articles per WP:NFCC#8 since makes very little sense at all to use the federation's logo as the primary means for identifying the tournament or either league. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles but Football Association of Moldova. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:54, 18 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:Siya and Ram.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in Siya Ke Ram since there is no need for a screenshot of two of the characters from the show. There is no sourced critical commentary about either actors appearance so removing the image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding; In addition, another non-free screen shot is already being used within the article's infobox so this is not need for identification purposes. This is purely decorative usage which is something that is not allowed at all by WP:NFCC. Marchjuly (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with this image?? This picture shows the lead actors of the tv serial. If there is any problem tell me and tell me What i should do. Kritksh (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the contextual signficance required by WP:NFCC#8 does not exist. This screenshot just shows the two lead actors in costume. There's no sourced discussion of screenshot or the two actors' appearances anywhere in the article, so the reader does not really need to see the image to understand what is written. If it were a freely licensed image, then it could be used in such a way; This type of decorative usage, however, is not allowed for non-free images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 19 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:Tetra Tech logo.png

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 ⚡ 08:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This logo does not appear to be very original, certainly not as much as some of the logos on commons:COM:TOO#United_States that aren't copyrightable. And even if it is copyrightable, it's not compliant with WP:NFCC#3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 18 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.