Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30[edit]

File:Ketnet Hits 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: convert to fair use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File should be converted back to {{non-free logo}}. Back in February, XPanettaa converted it to PD-logo. A previous FFD discussion regarding this file worked off the assumption that the file was non-free. The file is clearly more than plain text. The background shading, sparkles, and intricate design of the "K" take this above c:COM:TOO. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:30, 30 March 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:Wingate by Wyndham 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: Delete; deleted as F5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually a vector image, it is a raster image embedded inside an SVG. File:Wingate by Wyndham Logo.png is less misleading and is actually 1/3 the file size. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thought I check that it was a vector image. I guess not. Elisfkc (talk) 02:51, 30 March 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:Bidasari.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 ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free poster art being used in Bidasari (play). File has a non-free use rationale, but the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. The article is about a play, not the film adaptation and the poster itself is not the subject of a sourced discussion withjn the article. Decorative usage such as this is not allowed by WP:NFCC, so I suggest delete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 30 March 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:BrooklandsPoster.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 ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free poster art being used in Brooklands#History. Poster is for an even held in July 1937, so I am wondering if this qualifies for {{PD-US-no notice}} or some other free license. File has a non-free use rationale, but the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident because the poster is not being used as the primary means of identification and is not itself the subject of any sourced discussion within the article. If this can be converted to a free license, the file would not be subject to WP:NFCC. If it cannot be converted, I suggest delete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 30 March 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:MWU.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, used in an expired PROD, no foreseeable use FASTILY 07:08, 30 March 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:Nautical chart colour.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 ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused locally, superior version available: File:British Admiraly chart colours.svg FASTILY 07:29, 30 March 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:QMAkidseducation.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 ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Websized image claiming to be own work. Uploader account blocked as spam username. Unlikely license on the file is correct. Deadstar (talk) 08:51, 30 March 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:Queen Victoria taking the Coronation Oath GH.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 ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocky, watermarked duplicate of the larger File:Queen Victoria Taking the Coronation Oath, June 28, 1838, by George Hayter.jpg. Deadstar (talk) 09:29, 30 March 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:Clement Davies c1955.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 in Clement Davies, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in three articles and WP:NFCC#10c in two of them. Should only appear in Clement Davies. The other articles are neither biographies of the person nor articles in which there is sourced critical discussion about the photograph of the person. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is any image being listed here for deletion when it is the only image in a biography article?

This is the leader of one of the major national political parties in the General Election articles under discussion. Stefan is exercising considerable POV anti-Liberal bias in selectively removing the leader's image from the three infoboxes on the election.

For the NFCC#10c issue, it is lazy editing against the encyclopedic goals of this project to list an image here, rather than simply "doing the paperwork" instead. This is the characteristic feature of all Stefan2's editing, and why he is so regularly damaging to the project.

As to the NFCC#8 issue, then firstly this is a UK General Election and this is the leader of one of the main parties. The infobox is set up to expect a portrait image of the leaders like this. Removing the image doesn't even close it up, it leaves a gaping hole. This should give some indication of the priority that the project places on a leader image in such an election.

As to the 1950 General Election, then this is both a pivotal election for the Clement Davies and the Liberals, and commutatively one in which he played a pivotal role - as already discussed at length in the bio article, specifically for this election. This was not the 1945 election in which the Liberals fell from political power, it was the election in which this fall become obviously entrenched. It was also the election in which Davies had gambled all on standing so many candidates and lost almost all so humiliatingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been listed for discussion, not deletion. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading:

“

Some examples of nomination statements include:

[...]

Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.

”

For the WP:NFCC#10c issue, the requirement is that the file needs to have a valid FUR, not just any FUR, i.e. the FUR should specify why the file satisfies all non-free content criteria. Since the file doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8, no valid FUR can be written, so the simple fix you suggested isn't possible.

For the WP:NFCC#8 issue, the fact that a template has a parameter for including an image is not in itself a carte blanche for including an image when the template is used. For example, {{Infobox album}} has a parameter for an album cover image, but per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, that parameter is normally not to be used when the template is used to describe the soundtrack of a film in the article about the film. In this case, {{Infobox Election}} is not supposed to contain an image of this person since no free image is available and since no image is needed in order to understand what happened during that election. If you don't like gaping holes, then this can be solved in other ways. For example, the pictures of the other two people could be removed from the article, in which case the gaping hole magically disappears. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally your lazy response to not wanting to write a FUR is to delete the image. This time you're wanting to delete all three images. Is it perhaps time to find a more constructive hobby? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing to delete any image. I'm proposing to remove this image from three articles in which the image fails WP:NFCC#8. You complained that this would leave a gaping hole in the infobox, and I proposed that you could get rid of this problem by also removing the other images. Alternatively, you could live with the gaping hole, or solve the problem in some other way which does not involve the use of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 implies that a non-free images can only be used in the biography of the subject. This is certainly not the case. They can be used in other articles where they meet WP:NFCC#8.

Andy Dingley makes a valid point about the infobox being designed to accommodate portraits of the party leaders. This is a standard infobox design. The images of party leaders are expected to be placed in these infoboxes because it has been recognised that their inclusion provides contextual significance to the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. In the case of the 1950 article, Davies's role in the election is even covered in some detail.

The 1951 and 1955 articles do not cover him to the same extent so it could be argued that he does not have as much contextual significance as 1950. However, two points can be used to counter this view; firstly, both these articles are rated 'start class' so there is a strong probability that when the article is improved his contextual significance will be more easily understood; secondly WP:NFCC#8 does not recognise degrees of contextual significance, it regards the issue as an absolute - he either has it or he doesn't. If he has it, then the NFURs needs to be added. Graemp (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where infoboxes have a parameter for an image but where no image is used. Check for example Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg: one image was deleted because it wasn't used in a biography about the person but in an article about an event in which the person had participated (Umpqua Community College shooting). That article contains an infobox template which contains an image parameter, but the image parameter isn't used because there is no file available which satisfies WP:NFCC#8. It's the same problem here: this image is also used in articles about events (United Kingdom general election, 1950, etc.) in which the person participated, but for the same reason as in the other discussion, the image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 in these articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Stefan2: When considering if an image meets WP:NFCC#8, a lack of an image in another article is not a material consideration. The purpose of use of the Davies image in the 1950 article is as stated in the NFUR "for visual identification of the person in question, as the leader of the party for which the election had the most significant outcome." In assessing how a NFUR image might meet NFCC#8 Wikipedia specifically recognises the need to visually identify a person. This image of Davies is of a good quality which enables the sitter to be identified, therefore fulfilling its purpose under NFCC#8. Graemp (talk) 15:48, 31 March 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:Wallpaper.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by Sujithk (talk · contribs): Claimed to be own work by the uploader, but the watermark suggests otherwise. Delete this file.
File uploaded by Paulscf (talk · contribs): No source or licence provided by the uploader. Possibly not copyrightable. An IP added a statement on the file information page that 'this design' is unfree. I suspect that 'this design' is this file, although it could be the other file in the history. Regardless of its copyright status, the file seems to be out of scope, so delete this one too. Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image by Sujithk appears to be some kind of desktop background/wallpaper given the Google Image Search results, and is almost certainly unfree.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 10 April 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.

La 2 (Spanish TV channel) logos[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 first file; convert remaining two to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tve2-logo3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:TVE2 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Tve2-logo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This article has a whole gallery full of non-free logos and with no sourced discussion about them anywhere, thus violating WP:NFCC#8 for the non-frees which aren't used anywhere else. At least one is also shadowing a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the logos seem to be below the threshold of originality. The first file is of poor quality, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to know Spain's TOO before labelling them as PD. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark File:TVE2 logo.png and File:Tve2-logo2.jpg as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but delete File:Tve2-logo3.jpg per WP:NFCC#8 per nom. The two aforementioned files I recommend be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} should be tagged as so since these files would be public domain in the United States due to lack of originality, but the copyright status of these files in Spain is currently unknown and hasn't seemed to evolve during the course of this discussion. However, the other one, File:Tve2-logo3.jpg should be deleted since it had background coloration and looks like it was photographed from a television screen, meaning that there could be a claim that the effects on the image add originality. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 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:Baby Come To Me Regina Belle (Single).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 F5 by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is actually the cover of the compilation. The actual US vinyl single does not have a cover. Therefore, because the compilation is not independently notable, the image should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 18:32, 30 March 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:Adam Ruins Everything 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 as is. — ξ ^xplicit 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move this image to Commons? The logo consists of just text; copyright may appear unlikely. George Ho (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would we gain by doing that? It's possible that the light effects are copyrightable, and the image doesn't seem to be needed on other projects as there is no article about the subject there. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 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:Testfileforuploadingoggaudio.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused test upload, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 22:38, 30 March 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.