Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23[edit]

File:Sonyarose.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the subject was deleted following wp:PROD in 2007, as a non-notable model; the current page Sonya Rose is about a different person. – Fayenatic London 00:29, 23 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:Dodge City Law 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: Kept jpg, deleted png. Moved to the master article and removed from the season article. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these seem to be the essentially the same logo, so only one of them seems to be needed per WP:NFC#3a. "File:Dodge City Law logo.png" is currently being used in Dodge City Law and that seems to comply with WP:NFCC; "File:Dodge City Law CIF 2015 logo.jpg", however, is being used in 2015 Dodge City Law season which seems unacceptable per WP:NFCC#8 and Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, unless perhaps it is the first season where this particular logo was used by the team. I'm not sure whether the .png or .jpeg version should be deleted. The .jpg was uploaded first, but it appears to be of a higher quality so may not be the preferred version per WP:NFCC#3b. If the .png file is deleted, then the .jpg file can be moved to the team's article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the higher-quality jpg over the too-small png file, using the surviving file in both articles. The 2015 season was, indeed, the first season where this logo was used by the team. - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we only use a small thumbnail of the JPG image but there currently is a huge copy on Wikipedia, so if we decide to keep the JPG, it would need to be significantly reduced per WP:NFCC#3b, and it should also be tagged with {{badJPEG}} and {{opaque}}, problems which are avoided if we use the PNG instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 29 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:Wichita B52s PASL logo.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: KEpt in the team articles only and removed from the season. Source fixing is a later editorial matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in 2013–14 Professional Arena Soccer League season. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but neither image is "The image is used to identify the organization 2013–14 Professional Arena Soccer League season, a subject of public interest" since File:2013–14 PASL Ron Newman Cup logo.png is being used in the article's infobox. The individual team logos seem fine for their respective stand-lone articles (Wichita B-52s and Hidalgo La Fiera, but they should be removed from the "2013-2014" season article per WP:NFCC#8 because their usage is primarily decorative (the logos themselves are not the subject of any sourced critical commentary). -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I added the logos to the article, the discussion of one team's rebranding and the other's entry into the league (replacing a long-standing team identity that had survived multiple owners and leagues) seemed to be sufficient reason to include them. There is, in fact, sourced commentary about the Wichita logo included in the article (and sourced to this news report), albeit brief to avoid giving undue weight to that commentary. - Dravecky (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is still open? Whether or not the image remains on the season articles, it's perfectly valid for the team article and thus should not be deleted. As it's been over a month, could somebody please close this as keep? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from 2013–14 Professional Arena Soccer League season as it clearly violates WP:NFCC#8 in that article. Additionally, the source link doesn't work, so this seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stefan2: I was able to find this website for the Wichita B-52s and the logo there looks like the one show in this 2013 news article so I am wondering if that's acceptable as the source for File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.jpg". As for "File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png", I was able to find this Twitter account and this 2014 archived version of the team's official website where the logo can be seen. Would any of these be acceptable as sources for the two files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 29 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:ChicagoMustangsPASL.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: Kept in the 2012/2013 article only with the updated source information. Peripitus (Talk) 08:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo currently be used in 2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season and 2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season. Usage may be acceptable in the "2012-2013 season" article because this was the first season of the team and, therefore, likely the first season the logo was used. Usage in the "2013-2014 season" article, however, seems to fail WP:NFCC because of Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI so it should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the first season of the team and the logo was modified in 2014, per soccer tradition, after the team won the league championship. - Dravecky (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the star was added to the logo. And that graphic is much better than mine. So I wouldn't mind it being deleted. Maybe keep the one with the logo for the main page but delete logos altogether from the 2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season and 2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season pages. -- GrouchoPython (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it could be used in one article and not the other.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the logo was freely licensed then it could be used pretty much as desired as long as the usage satisfies WP:IUP. It is a non-free image, however, which means that each usage of it must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria. The usage of a logo such as this is generally only considered acceptable for the stand-alone article about the organization in question when it's used as the primary means of identification in the infobox or when the any discussion of the logo reflects what reliable sources say and actually seeing it improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. The usage in the "2012-2013" season article might be considered to be OK since that appraently was the first season the logo was used to represent the team, but any usage is subsequent seasons is generally not considered acceptable per No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI (it's not a sponsor's logo per se, but the principal is basically the same) and No. 17 of the same NFC#UUI (the "parent" in this case is considered to be the main team article, while the "child" is considered to be the season article(s)). WP:NFCC#3 requires that non-free usage be minimal, so limiting the number of article where a non-free image may be used is one way of ensuring this. This does mean that a non-free image can only be used in a single article, but multiple usages are harder to justify and tend to only be allowed when absolutely essential to the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is still open? Whether or not the image remains on one or more season articles, it's perfectly valid for at least one article and thus should not be deleted. As it's been over a month, could somebody please close this as keep? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from 2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season for violation of WP:NFC#UUI §14. It may or may not satisfy WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season (it depends on whether this was when the logo was first used), but as it currently stands, the logo fails WP:NFCC#10a. It says The logo may be obtained from 2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season. and The logo may be obtained from 2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season. but from what I can tell, there is no entity called '2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season' or '2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season', so the statement is clearly bogus. Also, stating that a copy of a logo can be obtained from a named entity doesn't seem to be a source in the first place. It's just some text that the template outputs when the uploader doesn't bother to specify a source and should be interpreted as 'no source'. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stefan: I checked for archived versions of the team's official website and found this one from November 2012 and a direct link to the image can be found here. Do you think this is sufficient to satisfy NFCC#10a? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 29 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:Mark Sanchez 2012-11-22.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nonfree image fails WP:NFCC#8. This reaction image does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the Butt fumble (any reader could figure out that Sanchez was probably upset at the course of events), unlike a more carefully chosen image of the ball being dislodged. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:53, 23 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:BOOTHS THEATRE EXTERIOR 1869.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 ⚡ 09:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bogus "own work" claim, considering that the image description says year "1869", but the painting looks as though it was stamped by a "C. W. Williams" with the year 1918. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 23 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:BOOTHS THEATRE HENRY V 1883.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 ⚡ 09:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously bogus "Own work" claim, given the date represented (1883). However, since this is obviously not "Own work", the source is unknown (so the publication date of the work cannot currently be verified to see if it is still eligible for copyright.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 23 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:EM-spectrum.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File has been replaced by a vector alternative on Wikimedia Commons. Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 20:51, 23 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.