Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5[edit]

File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a non-free file for the front cover of the DVD. We don't need an image of the back cover per WP:NFCCP #3a. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete** unnecessary as the front cover is present and there is no significance to the back cover for the article. Anon 23:00, 8 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:WestVirginiaWizards-helmet.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 ⚡ 09:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this should be non-free because it just seems to be a generic helmet image with no logo or other distinctive markings. If it is non-free, then it has no source and there's no way to verify it's copyright information per WP:NFCC#10a. Also, there's no logo on the helmet at all so how it identifies West Virginia Wizards is unclear per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 5 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:NLC-MIL-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: keep File:Milwaukee Brewers Logo.svg. — ξ ^xplicit 06:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both logos are non-free and seem identical except that one is a .png file and the other is a .svg file. The .png file is being used in Dominican Summer League Brewers, a rookie summer league team of the Milwaukee Brewers, which is not generally allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The MLB.com webpage for DSL Brewers uses this wordmark which may be acceptable for upload to Commons as {{PD-textlogo}}, but the logo for the parent team should not be used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 5 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:MilwaukeeBrewers caplogo.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: remove from Dominican Summer League Brewers. — ξ ^xplicit 06:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in the infoboxes of Milwaukee Brewers and Dominican Summer League Brewers. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but "Dominican Summer League Brewers" is a rookie summer league team of the "Milwaukee Brewers" so the logo should not be used in the child entity article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, unless it is considered simple enough to not be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 5 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:Marquette Golden Eagles.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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 06:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this logo might be considered simple enough for {{PD-logo}} since it is basically just text and almost the same as File:Marquette mu small.png found on Commons. However, if it is really non-free, then it should really only be used in Marquette Golden Eagles and removed from all of the individual team articles and the university's article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The Commons image could be used as a replacement in all of the team articles if desired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re {{PD-logo}}. Like you said its just an arrangement of letters and font is not copyrightable in US. Rybkovich (talk) 06:00, 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:Racine Legion.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 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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be {{PD-logo}} and not non-free due to its simple design. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not original enough at all.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 6 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:Aanval 8 Console Home.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 ⚡ 10:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted software. No claim of fair use provided. Self-work claim is incorrect. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it might pass if a claim of fair use is added, in the context of describing the website in the main infobox.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 6 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:GrandJunctionRockiescap.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cap logo for the Grand Junction Rockies. The logo is listed as non-free and it has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it seems simple enough to not be eligible for copyright protection. I think this is OK to convert to {{PD-logo}} and tag with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 5 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:Levofloxacin-black-box.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 per CSD G7 and consensus.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP:F7/WP:NFCC#1 tag I placed has been disputed, I am starting this discussion. This image solely consists of text, a box around the text, and some more words placed above and below the box: for this reason, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 since it can be replaced by text and to represent what this image is supposed to convey: the warning on the product. Setting the box aside, this warning can be typed out in <blockquote> with a reference citing this text to illustrate the warning's text if need be. Also, to respond to the uploader's speedy contest, WP:NFCC#1 isn't exclusive to requiring that a file be replaced by another file: If the file can be replaced by text and/or wiki markup for the black box in this case (which is why I placed the {{Should be text}} tag that was removed by the uploader), it can also fail WP:NFCC#1. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You insist on moving my argument to be after yours, even though I made it first (at 20:45. diff)

Note: The nomination statement goes at the top regardless of past events. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

It's a black box warning, so of course the precise text, which was fought over tooth and nail, is key. Yes, it can be replaced with the text, but the result would not be what NFCC 1 specifies - a free image that adequately provides the same information, rather it would result in a non-free image. And if the text was different it would fail to illustrate the levofloxacin "black box" warning. I have also removed the {{Should be text}} tag.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please address my response, rather than only restate your claims. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Elvey: My nomination addresses your response with my claims, so I don't understand what you are asking. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination repeats your initial claims made at File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png. It is not responsive.

I'll ask uyou direct questions, since you claim not to understand:

If I replaced the image with the text, an image of that would not be a free image that adequately provides the same information, would it? Rather it would result in a non-free image, right? Do you understand that the underlying text is copyrighted? And if the text was different it would fail to illustrate the levofloxacin "black box" warning, right? How would one create a free equivalent? If you can create one, please do. I'll be impressed. Are you willing to do that? --Elvey^(t•c) 22:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A variation of the same image that is created may be able to illustrate this information that is not considered a derivative work, so thus would be considered a free work. The best example I can provide to illustrate this is probably File:Manitoba secondary X.svg: This file was created as a template since real Manitoba road signs also include an image of a buffalo that is considered copyrightable. However, I'm not sure if a similar argument could be applied to this image. (Thus, I brought the discussion here after you contested the speedy nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. So, I'm still wanting you to answer those questions I just asked. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Hello, User:Steel1943? 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: As I have essentially stated above, I have exhausted all of my current knowledge over the matter, so I cannot provide you the answers that you are trying to acquire from me. I have a concern which I have stated above about this image, and I'm hoping that other editors (such as the ones below) can provide some insight via their opinions as well to see if my concerns can be validated or invalidated. This could be a bit of a learning experience in regards to Wikipedia's policies that pertain to this image. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't answer a single one of these questions: If I replaced the image with the text, an image of that would not be a free image that adequately provides the same information, would it? Rather it would result in a non-free image, right? Do you understand that the underlying text is copyrighted? And if the text was different it would fail to illustrate the levofloxacin "black box" warning, right? How would one create a free equivalent? If you can create one, please do. I'll be impressed. Are you willing to do that? I believe requests for your opinion are answerable, and that's what I see. In asking these questions, I'm trying to identify where your objection lies.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this comes off harsh, but ... so? I've stated why I think as a non-free file it fails WP:NFCC#1. And as I just stated (in one way or another), feel free to validate or invalidate my claims or suggest and/or implement an alternative: That is the purpose of discussion boards such as this one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this comes off harsh, but ... you are violating policy with which you should be familiar and must respect. Warned. You do not hear me when I say that, "In asking these questions, I'm trying to identify where your objection lies." --Elvey^(t•c) 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hello, User:Steel1943? 02:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: You have now failed to ping me twice since you failed to sign your edit after you mentioned me ... twice (has to be done in the same edit.) That, and you seem to be accusing other editors, including myself, of starting forks in this discussion ... when it seems that per the proof on my talk page and here (see your "warned" link above), you started them yourself. Anyways, I've addressed your attitude in regards to this whole situation in my talk page (since you decided to start a discussion there for some reason.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this as a case of WP:FREER's interpretation of WP:NFCC#1. The image is less free than simply quoting the admittedly copyrighted text in text-form, because the image not only contains copyrighted text but is also a screenshot of a copyrighted webpage. Thus, if we use the text alone in the article (which is still technically a case of fair use, although textual fair use, rather than a fair use image), it would be free-er (or less non-free, if you will) than using the image. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:FREER? So you'd be in favor of replacing the image in the article with a box quoting the admittedly copyrighted text in text-form? Y/N? I don't see the difference as material, as far as respecting copyright goes, plus there's what Jo-Jo says below.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage itself does fall under PD-USGov since it's a government agency, thus voiding the WP:FREER concerns. The text though seems to be from a company and not free material unless it is too short or too unoriginal to qualify for copyright protection. Now, is it absolutely imperative to use that text of iffy copyright status instead of using our own formulation? Because if no, then this should be deleted for WP:NFCC#1 violation.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, what is the answer your question? --Elvey^(t•c) 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the document is copyrighted property of the company per the mark at the end of the document, even though it is hosted on a government website. further the presence of the image on the page (which just reproduces the text) doesn't add value as the black box warniing is already discussed in the article. There is no value-add here; no fair use justification. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why put text into pictures? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While nom's rationale may be a bit flawed, there are other reasons to prefer text over images of text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images. I do not see why this black box should be an image instead of (quoted) text. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HyperGaruda. I'm not sure why (as originally suggested in the nomination statement by Steel1943) that the text in the image cannot be added to the relevant section of the article using WP:BQ or reformulated in accordance with what Jo-Jo Eumerus wrote above, and properly attributed to the FDA page being given as the source of the image. Regardless, the image is now currently being used on the article's talk page which is a clear violation of WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c. It can be linked to there for the purposes of discussion, but should not be displayed there and should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. HyperGaruda makes a good point. One which probably would have been arrived at sooner if User:Steel1943 hadn't been so uncivil. Don't need to worry about that editor, who denies the reality that I did ping with a "Hello, [[User:Steel1943]]?" or his obstructionist refusal to be civil here, as documented on his talk page.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:43, 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:Croatia national football team badge.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: keep File:Croatia football federation.png. — ξ ^xplicit 06:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both files are esentially the same except for the shadowing in "Croatia national team badge". The non-free usage of "Croatia football federation.png" was reviewed in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png and the result was that it should only be used in Croatian Football Federation. "Croatia national football team badge.png" was uploaded on December 13, 2015 (after the close of the aforementioned NFCR discussion). Whether this was just a coincidence or an attempt to circumvent that NFCR discussion is irrelevant because the two images are essentially the same per WP:NFCC#3a and therefore one of them should be deleted. If "Croatia football federation.png" is the one deleted, then the other image should be removed from the national team article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and added to the federation article (with the non-free use rationale accordingly changed). If "Croatia national football team badge.png" is deleted then the one being used in the federation article should be left as is. Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these two logos about the same thing, or is one the team and the other the federation logo? In the first case, delete both logos may be correct since the webpage shows this as the actually correct one. In the latter case, each article should have its own logo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Croatian national football team badge.png" might have come from the Croation football federation's official Twitter account. "Croation football federation.png" which was uploaded in July 2008 seems to be an older version of the current logo according to this December 2008 archived version of the federation's official website. Regardless, the designs are almost identical and both logos seem to be the official logo of the federation which means neither logo should be used in the individual team article per UUI#17 and both are not needed per NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the free license for File:Hns-dres.jpg, which is also being used in the article. is really OK, then I'm not sure if the non-free logo file satisfies WP:NFCC#1. The logo in the photo seems to be the same and to serve basically the same encyclopedic purpose, so I think the photo could be moved up to the infobox and the non-free removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding. This is just my opinion and totally depends upon whether the licensing of the photo is acceptable for English Wikipedia as well as Croatian Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 2 February 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.