Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 10

< August 9	August 11 >

August 10[edit]

File:Dads Root Beer jingle.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete,Orphan Page now uses score-tags to show music. Akurn (talk) 06:54, 10 August 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:Foxi.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be derivative of copyrighted character. Kelly ^hi! 08:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, so if non-free, can't apply NFCC.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 10 August 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:Netop 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a damaged version of File:Netop logo.png, which is under a PS-simple style license. It would be appreciated if a decision about which image to retain could be reached. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 10 August 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:Confederate Lot on the NRHP.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: Withdrawn Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but previously published at Historical Marker dataBase (HMdB.org). Clarification from uploader desirable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who published the photo in both the HMdb.org website and Wikipedia. I am the one who took the photo and posted it to both places. I even noted on the Wiki page that I used it on HMdb.org. Not sure where I am supposed to respond to the discussion? User:hoteltwo 13:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You responded here , that's reasonable enough.

Withdrawn- Uploader provided the required clarification. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 14 August 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:MoscowZooMap(en)sm.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of 2D map design by third party. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 10 August 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:Aircrack-ng-new-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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 18#File:Aircrack-ng-new-logo.jpg

Querying why this is non-free as the equivalent at Commons was considered 'simple' following a deletion request. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added this image over 6 years ago. I have no understanding of this classification. --Mespinola (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certain logos in the US are deemed to be too simple for them to be entitled to copyright protection. See Threshold of originality Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 13 August 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:FSCgernalMeeting2.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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referral on the grounds that if this an image in support of an article about a living person, it's replaceable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 10 August 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:The Chainsmokers Halsey Closer.ogg[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 ⚡ 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, not detrimental in removal for understanding of article as nothing about the sample is discussed in the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that an audio sample is harmful to the page? --U990467 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an audio sample is added purely for decorative reason and does not help the reader in increasing their understanding of the article in question, then there's no point in adding it. Please understand that non-free content cannot be just added because you feel like. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help the reader in increasing their understanding of the article? That's absurd. How can you explain this? --U990467 (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesnot. Please refer to articles like "Living for Love" and Rebel Heart to understand how the sample File:Madonna - Living for Love.ogg is being used as a non-free sample in both articles, with proper rationale as to why the usage is necessary. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't explain why "Boys Like You" can keep its audio sample while "Closer" can NOT. --U990467 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 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:Test pic.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a blurry picture that is of no use. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:21, 10 August 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:Wiki-Wanted.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: Keep czar 23:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used in user space, but has 2 licenses, one less restrictive, which one is accurate? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if both at once may be correct. That is, that someone may use this file under GFDL but also without any restrictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it appears that the uploader released it under both. ★ Bigr Tex 20:45, 21 August 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:Poppybud.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: rmv duplicate license czar 23:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses, which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG These are the exact same license. The templates are slightly different - one refers to "self" works the other is more general - but the license is the same. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 18 August 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:St Andrews Castle.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. We have clearer images at Commons:Category:St Andrews Castle. Kelly ^hi! 13:14, 10 August 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:6r65v6mkokjihihihiuyh.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope here - It had a "historic" license however it's a selfie of the uploader so the historic license doesn't apply, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 13:34, 10 August 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:St Giles' church, Carburton.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. We have clearer photos at Commons:Category:St Giles' Church, Carburton. Kelly ^hi! 14:25, 10 August 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:Church Front.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. We have better photos at Commons:Category:Church of the Assumption (North Marston). Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 10 August 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:Harbor Sunset, Long Beach, California.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 ⚡ 07:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses, which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what I said above regarding "same license, different templates". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eh, I doubt the photo's provenance. It looks shopped but there is no description of how. (The photo is also used on many wallpaper sites so it's hard to tell where it came from.) The user's upload list has other photos that are more likely by the uploader but use a lower quality camera. The user has had issues with copyright before (see talk page) and used the same edit summary for this upload as for File:Us-md-aa.gif—a logo that also doesn't qualify under {{PD-release}}. czar 23:41, 24 August 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:Jay Pizzle.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI - image of still-living person. Violates NFCC#1 Эlcobbola _talk 18:52, 10 August 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:Jay Pizzle Shot.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI - image of still-living person. Violates NFCC#1 Эlcobbola _talk 18:53, 10 August 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:George Washington Memorial Bridge-cropped.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 czar 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version of an image deleted in 2005. Can someone read the sourcing authorship of the deleted image and confirm the cropped version is OK? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That file was uploaded by a Shakespeare on 00:43, July 20, 2004, without a license tag. If memory serves, once upon a time we didn't have license tags and uploaders had to agree to release their images under the GFDL instead. The file is not available in the history and Quadell claims the file was deleted per WP:IFD but I don't see a discussion link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in history just says "Unverified orphans". ★ Bigr Tex 20:55, 21 August 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:Northcoast.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: Keep ★ Bigr Tex 20:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in userspace, lo res, 16 col (seeing dithering.). has watermark... I don't think this image is very useful. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be useful for that person's userspace. So keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 18 August 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:Ualbany entrance sign 01.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 ⚡ 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third party logo, which would need a seperate license from the uploaders photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now, the university's history link makes me wonder if the logo falls under {{PD-1923}}. This also affects File:University at Albany, SUNY Seal.svg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - it seems like there have been a number of renderings and the current is from 2003.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 18 August 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:SNY 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: move to Commons czar 23:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; non sense in saving it since it's been replaced by a PNG version. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The JPG version has a different colour and slightly larger resolution. Sure that it couldn't be useful? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only orphaned because you changed it. The uploader said the logo is more current. If you want to phase out the jpg, create a comparable png/svg (in blue). Until then, move to Commons. czar 23:48, 24 August 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.