Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1[edit]

File:2016 Test Results Graph 2016 v2.pdf[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 09:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is output from a software program, The source listed doesn't have an obvious CC/PD release, but the uploader claims " it is in public domain anyway as part of Oasis process." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice has been updated. Tuntable (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuntable, did you create the graph? And is it owned by you or Cryptsoft? The copyright owner needs to be the one who sets the permissions. czar 20:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the document, for Cryptsoft, and it is posted here with the permission of Cryptosft management. It is also public domain due to Oasis processes. Tuntable (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuntable, would you please send email verification of their permission (OTRS) and share the ticket number here? We'll be good after that czar 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I have already told you, and you do not believe me. So my posting extra info which you would not believe is hardly helpful. I suggest you send an email yourself to the address that you can verify is correct from the Cryptsoft website and satisfy yourself. That said, the nature of the diagram, and the fact that it is up on the OASIS standards website and thus covered by their open license should make this totally non-controversial. But if it really worries you, send the email. Tuntable (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending proof of permission
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuntable, what I said has nothing to do with believing you—we log all proof of permission in an email ticket system in case it is ever challenged in the future. It's for someone with a copyright claim a decade from now. czar 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what is your email address.Tuntable (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuntable. You need to send a "declaration of consent" (i.e., a permissions email) to OTRS, not Czar. How to do this is explained here and here. For reference, OTRS requires that permissions emails be worded a particular way so you might want to look at WP:CONSENT or c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic presentation (whether by software or by hand) is clearly {{PD-simple}}. The only part which is potentially copyrightable is the data (number of tests passed per product and protocol). And in any case it need clearer sourcing for who performed the tests: The only source given is Cryptsoft; did they perform the testing of the competing products? —teb728 t c 00:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Cryptsoft tickets found in OTRS. czar 09:30, 4 January 2017 (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.

Tales of Eternia[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:ToE Cover.jpg, delete the rest. — ξ ^xplicit 04:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the European PlayStation Portable box art of the video game, Tales of Eternia, to replace the original Japanese cover per WP:VGBOX. Then I uploaded the North American PlayStation One cover because North America had its release under the different title. Also, it was to replace the PSP cover. However, I decided to ignore all rules by reinserting the original Japanese cover into the infobox and then putting the North Amer. cover and the Euro PSP cover into the same section with one in its respective subsection. Because rules normally discourage more than one cover arts, I decide to have a discussion about keeping one or more covers. I don't have much preference on either English cover, but I think that original Japanese cover may be necessary to avoid confusing readers a lot. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is below:

European Eternia cover in the infobox - the main image should have a cover that matches the article title. If Eternia is the WP:COMMONNAME, (which I believe it is), then as a result, an Eternia box art would probably be the most recognizable, and thus, the best choice.
NA ToD2 image in article body - If we deemed it necessary to have 2 images, then I'd have the second one be the Tales of Destiny 2 image, as at least that would apply to a portion of the naming issues covered in the infobox. It could be useful for the reader, as the renaming of the game in that region is a recurring point of confusion for people generally.
Remove the JP cover - With Wikipedia's image policy, we'll be lucky if we can rationalize using 2 images, let alone three. The European PSP one is probably most recognizable in the English speaking regions, and the Destiny 2 relates to the development section. The JP cover is least useful to the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Serge, you removed the NA ToD2 image and then kept the JP cover when you were improving the article. Why a sudden change of mind? George Ho (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "sudden change of mind" - that edit is from 4 years ago, and its not completely irreconcilable from what I'm saying above. Both then and now, I felt the NA cover was the worst choice for the primary infobox image. I don't personally upload images to Wikipedia, so as far as I can tell, I was just picking the best of the two available options at the time. I don't recall opposing the NA cover in the body, I just didn't do it back then. Back then, I may not have known that it is allowable to use 2 covers in times where the difference in name/cover is a discussion point for the article. See featured article Ōkami, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European cover alone is my vote. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think we should IAR in this case and keep the Japanese cover in the infobox. This is as 1) the North American one isn't usable as it doesn't correlate with the page title, 2) the European one isn't usable as it's a ported re-release, and thus not the actual original game; 3) the Japanese one technically isn't usable as it's a VGBOX violation, but since the English Tales of Eternia logo prominently features in it, it's the least of three evils imo. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I don't believe there's any guidelines against using the cover of ported version. WP:GA's Tales of Graces and Tales of Hearts both use the artwork of their later releases, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Tales of Hearts didn't have an English release until six years after the original release. Maybe it'll be discussed after this discussion is over. This Eternia issue is a little complicated, but I was hoping that we would use Final Fantasy IV and VI as precedents. George Ho (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese cover, delete other two. One image is permitted for identification purposes, which the Japanese cover does best. It is the original, it includes the title in English, and it depicts characters from the game. The other two do not add any new information and are otherwise not visually necessary to explain some in-text context (WP:NFCC#8). Unless there is cause for keeping more than one image—and I mean some source that explains the import of one of the other cover art images—then the JP art is sufficient for identification and the others are superfluous. czar 14:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably needs more commentary still.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per czar, keep the ja cover and delete the other two. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JP & NA cover (alternatively, keep EU & NA cover). It seems there is some referenced discussion of the title change so that should be sufficient to keep the "Tales of Destiny 2" cover w/ sourced commentary. SnowFire (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing in the article that describes some second cover artwork such that it needs to be depicted. Media articles discuss later releases all the time and it's always sufficient to explain how the change/localization works through the prose. It's only when something about the image can only be understood by—our last resort, a visual depiction—that we resort to fair use rationales. czar 06:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe that this standard is too inconsistent, harsh, and hard to adjudicate. Been debated many times of course. Nothing can "only" be understood by visual depiction; that's a standard that is secretly "remove all Fair Use Images", which is fine, but not what Wikipedia decided on. I'm not saying you actually think that of course, but believing that variants on an "irreplaceable" standard has any meaning leads there. The better standard is "sourced commentary", which it appears this image has. SnowFire (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good sized portion of the development section is sourced commentary in regards to the name change in its NA release - something represented by the image. This seems like a textbook case when a second image would be acceptable, like Okami Wii-release cover controversy that WP:VGBOX gives as an example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:SnowFire: see my response to ProtoDrake below about WP:GUIDES. Same for you, Satellizer, in response to your original vote before the relisting. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my original comment (that we should use the JP cover). Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JP cover, delete EU and NA cover (amended) - It would be better to include a cover that features the original, most-commonly used and least-confusing title. The NA cover just seems superfluous. And looking at the two, I can't decide between them. The JP cover is possible, but I remember there being some kind of policy about using the English cover for titles that have received an overseas release. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGBOX, to which you refer, ProtoDrake, is the project's guideline, not policy. Per WP:GUIDES, we can treat that guideline with our common sense or make some exceptions to that guideline. George Ho (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, in that case I'll suggest keeping the JP cover art rather than the EU version. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by George Ho to weigh in on this. I don't really know anything about Tales of Eternia, so I don't feel qualified to give specific opinions on this specific case, but I did write down my thoughts on what I think should be done generally over at the WikiProject Video games talk page. (permalink)--IDV^talk 19:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use the JP cover - It's most elegant design of the three uploaded covers. I never understood the need for WP:VG's guidelines on insisting on using localized cover artwork when book and movie articles tend to prefer the original language editions. Jonny2x4 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has "elegance" been a valid reason for choosing video game box art? Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, can you make exceptions and use common sense per WP:PAG#Adherence? You can change your vote. George Ho (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or per WP:POLCON, you can use WP:IUP#Adding images to articles as temporary injunction and have WP:VGBOX discussed eventually. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support JP cover - (1) It uses the common name title, as opposed to the North American cover. (2) It is for the game's original platform, the PlayStation, as opposed to the EU cover for the PSP release. People who are unfamiliar with the series will mistakenly assume it was originally a PSP title if the EU cover is used. Delete the other covers unless there is commentary on their design. TarkusAB 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JP cover as it is the original release and it uses the common name title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:21, 12 December 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:Clark House 1888.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 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, doesn't have enough information on authorship and publication to determine PD status. Kelly ^hi! 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file name suggests that the file is from 1888, but we don't have any evidence that the file is from 1888. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The older version of the file is also published on http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2223-03862010000100012, where it says Clark House 1888 (Maritzburg College Archives). Unfortunately it's not clear what these archives are... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compare with File:Clark House, Maritzburg College, 1888.jpg, another image of the same building which is actually used in the Maritzburg College article. It would seem strange to delete a high resolution image of the image as "unused" when it could easily be used to replace the tiny image currently in place in the article. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try contacting the mentioned archivist (the archives are likely local, within the school)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the item's detailed description on good faith for a 2005 upload, it was created in 1888, making the photo {{PD-US-unpublished}} czar 09:08, 4 January 2017 (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:"Roberta" 1933 Broadway poster.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: Converted to PD (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this poster eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}}? The poster falls into the appropriate time era and has no copyright notice. However, I don't know where else a valid copyright notice could be posted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:09, 1 September 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:Treehouse of Horror.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: remove from list and series, one week to update fair use rationale for single episode article. No prejudice against reinstating the images if a fair use rationale can justify it. czar 09:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This animated screenshot of The Simpsons episode Treehouse of Horror is used in three articles. Which articles shall retain this image? George Ho (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd delete both uses honestly. Neither of them really seem to be adding much. There are better photos for the main THOH article, and the episode article isn't being served well either. Is it there to just show that it's set in a treehouse? Ok. You don't really need a picture to get that across. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary in Treehouse of Horror (The Simpsons episode), which is the actual episode from which this image was sourced, raises a valid point, that despite the name there has been only one episode actually set in a treehouse, and it was this one. It's a significant point and I think use in that article is appropriate. The same point applies to Treehouse of Horror, the umbrella article for all of the Treehouse of Horror episodes, so I see the use there as helpful to readers. However, I don't see justification for its use in List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes. I don't see that we need an image in that article at all. However, the image was present in that article when it was promoted to featured list status in 2007, so maybe there is justification for its retention. Treehouse of Horror is also a featured article and Treehouse of Horror (The Simpsons episode) has GA status. Any removal of the image from those articles should either trigger, or be the result of, an appropriate review, rather than just the opinions of a couple of editors here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if simply being used in an GA/FA article is in of itself sufficient justification for non-free use per WP:ITSFA. I can see how non-free use might be justified in the stand-alone article about the specific episode in the same way that cover art is typically allowed in stand-alone articles about specific albums, books, etc. We would not, however, generally allow such non-free use in list/biography articles about a musician or author books because such use tends to be more on the decorative side and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. If there was some sourced discussion of this particular screenshot within the other two articles then the connection between image and text would be much clearer, and removing the image could be seen as detrimental the to reader's understanding. However, it's not clear (at least to me) how NFCC#8 is satisfied for the other two articles and why this particular image needs to be used in these two articles. Perhaps something else such as this or this might be a more acceptable for non-free use in the one or both of the other articles? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, I agree with User:AussieLegend. I would delete from the list of episodes article; I don't think article status is relevant to this question. There, it's a bit of interesting trivia, hardly essential. I would keep it in the stand-alone article about the episode per the 'cover art' guideline. The tricky one for me is the article about the set of special episodes. There I think it is a highly relevant bit of commentary, as it's about the title given to the series of episodes and how misleading it is--in a sense, it is about the nature of the series of episodes. Therefore I would prefer it to stay. Claudia (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan, Claudia, Marchjuly, and AussieLegend: I added File:Treehouse of Horror series DVD.jpg into Treehouse of Horror. Now there are two images in the lead, but I don't mind one of them removed. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 12 December 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:Arnold Schunck 2.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 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No author or definitive date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See comment 2 threads up. DirkvdM (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See comments in 2 previous threads. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also see "Anna Schunck Kuppers" thread on this page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:24, 1 September 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:Arnold Schunck 1.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 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No author or definitive date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schunck (my greatgrandfather) lived from 1842 to 1905. For the photo to be post-1895, he would then have to be older than 53, which doesn't seem very likely to me. DirkvdM (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the image published beyond a family album? Commons has PD-heirs, which is what I am thinking might apply here, thanks for confirming the dates with respect to the subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely PD in the EU as well, Does the original image or album give a photographers name? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, anonymous photos which weren't published within 70 years from creation become re-copyrighted for 25 years upon publication. See Article 4 in the Copyright Duration Directive. If it's a family photo, then it might not have been published until it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Given the age, it should be free in the United States, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also see "Anna Schunck Kuppers" thread on this page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:23, 1 September 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:Anna Schunck Kuppers.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 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author is not uploader, source is "family album" but there's no defnitive date/author. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Schunck (my greatgrandmother) lived from 1843 to 1930. For the photo to be post-1895, she would then have to be older than 52, which doesn't seem very likely to me. DirkvdM (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was this image published other than in a family album. Does the original note a photographer or studio? I am thinking a PD-heirs situation may apply, but it needs more information to assist this assesment. I apologise if this is inconvenient but Wikipedia likes to have archive grade information (especially on possible copyrights) where possible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, anonymous photos which weren't published within 70 years from creation become re-copyrighted for 25 years upon publication. See Article 4 in the Copyright Duration Directive. If it's a family photo, then it might not have been published until it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Given the age, it should be free in the United States, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @DirkvdM, questions for you in these three threads I'm relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of no response and for lack of publication/authorship detail, closing this as "delete". See WP:REFUND for returning to these three discussions in the future with more info. czar 09:35, 4 January 2017 (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:Seal of California, 1964, Resources Agency Building, Sacramento, 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: Keep czar 09:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the seal appears to have been created by California, the photo may have been created by someone else. Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The general design of the seal dates back to 1849 and was approved by the State Constitutional Convention (hence the "created by California"), and the incarnation of the seal on the Resources Building dates to 1964. I've never been able to find the name of the artist, and I have tried, believe me. I personally did take that photo. Blcksx (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The seal is {{PD-CAGov}}, but as the photographer, you need to provide a licence for the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that is. How do I provide one? Blcksx (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blcksx: One way to do it is by replacing the copyright tags with

{{photo of art|YOUR PREFERRED LICENSE FOR THE PHOTO|NAME YOU WANT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO, IF YOU ASK FOR SUCH|{{PD-CAGov}}|pdsource=yes}}}

, filling in the YOUR PREFERRED LICENSE FOR THE PHOTO with a copyright tag from Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses and NAME YOU WANT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO, IF YOU ASK FOR SUCH with a name you want to be attributed to in case you pick a license that requires attribution.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blcksx: You still need to provide a license for your photograph or it will need to be deleted. Do you wish to release your photo into the public domain as well? Kelly ^hi! 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo license provided at file page czar 09:38, 4 January 2017 (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:Seminole County Expressway 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: Keep czar 09:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as unfree, but maybe it's a work of the government of Florida and thus eligible for {{PD-FLGov}}? If not, then it fails WP:NFCC#9 in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force/Database/toll roads. Stefan2 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://apps.seminolecountyfl.gov/bcc/scea/index.aspx seems to indicate it's a work by the county government, and per the template (and the court ruling cited therein) these fall under the scope of PD-FLGov.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the FL-Gov tag to this and one other file tagged for deletion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: If you're going to be bold and convert the file(s) to "PD-FLGov" yourself because that's what you believe they should be, then you should probably remove the non-free use rationale and logo templates since they are no longer needed. This will help to avoid any confusion due to the conflicting licenses. You can replace the rationale with Template:Information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again DanTD. You removed Template:FFD for files which are still being discussed. You should not remove this template unless you yourself are closing the FFD discussion as explained in WP:FFDAI. If my previous post was a bit confusing then I apologize, but what I meant was that there is no need for Template:Non-free logo and Template:Non-free use rationale if you are converting the files to public domain. You should remove those two templates from each file's page and add a completed Template:Information and a Template:PD-FLgov in their place. You should, however, only do that if you are certain these files are really in the public domain. If you have any doubt, then it's probably best to wait for an administrator to close this discussion and decide what needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you encouraged me to do just that. I wasn't sure how I was supposed to go through with the addition of "PD-FLGov" along with Template:Information. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually DanTD what I wrote was you should probably remove the non-free use rationale and logo templates since they are no longer needed. I did not say anything about removing the FFD templates and I'm not sure why you decided to do so. Anyway, basically the "Information" template replaces the non-free use rationale and the "PD-FLgov" license replaces the "Non-free logo" license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:10, 14 October 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:Osceola Parkway 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 PD-FLGov. Even if non-free, it is now used in an article. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as unfree, but maybe it's a work of the government of Florida and thus eligible for {{PD-FLGov}}? If not, then it fails WP:NFCC#9 in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force/Database/toll roads. Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why not add the {{PD-FLGov}} tag instead? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:46, 1 September 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:Time Town advert.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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 3#File:Time_Town_advert.jpg}}

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:Otis Alexander.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 F9 by Doc James (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Umais Bin Sajjad. Uploaded by a paid editor prior to disclosure. Clearly not the uploader's "own work". -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 2 September 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:VOLCANO DIGIT340px.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: websized promotional photo from new user with no authorship information czar 15:38, 1 September 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:Parts of Valve Set 180.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related volcano vaporizer nomination. Unlikely to be own work: websized promotional photo from new user with no authorship information czar 15:39, 1 September 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:Volcano in action.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See other volcano vaporizer noms. Unlikely to be own work: websized promotional photo from new user with no authorship information czar 15:41, 1 September 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:King of vaps klein.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a history of uploading copyrighted photos. This image appears to have been previously uploaded as File:VOLCANO.gif, also as "self-made" but with a different date. It is the most likely to be original of the bunch, but based on the amount of uploads in copyright violation, I don't trust the provenance of this one either. czar 15:45, 1 September 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:Ernest Lamb.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 ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image of this person is available (File:1910 Ernest Lamb.jpg) and WP:NFCC#8 as it is used in an article about the title Baron Rochester rather than a biography. January (talk) 21:14, 1 September 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:ŠNK Radgond older 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Older logos are not generally kept under fair use as they no longer serve as contextually significant (WP:NFCCP #8). New logo already uploaded and used on page under fair use (File:ŠNK Radgona.png) Majora (talk) 21:42, 1 September 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.