Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23[edit]

File:O'Donnell.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of publication before 1923. The only known publication is in Paddywacked: The Untold Story of the Irish American Gangster, which was published in 2006, but not by anyone authorized by the copyright holder. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:22, 23 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:Barrie flyers 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a hand-drawn version of a logo, meaning it's likely inaccurate. Not encyclopedic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:43, 23 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:Olympiques honourees.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 February 1#File:Olympiques_honourees.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:Statue of laurier.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality, redundant to File:Laurier statue, Ottawa.jpg ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transfer to Commons (with preservation of EXIF and all original upload information). Reason: This is the original of which a derivative exists on Commons. Originals are essential to preserve the integrity of the source and of the chain of reuses and of derivatives and to allow verification by potential users. The original includes the information as it was originally posted by the author himself. It also includes the EXIF data. And it is the uncropped photo, showing more context than the cropped derivative. Although we may agree on the lower quality compared to newer photos in the Commons category, the small advantage of deleting a photo of lower quality should yield before the necessity of preserving the integrity of the source. This is true also in relation to reuses that may have been made by external reusers. This photo seems to be older than all the photos of the subject in the Commons category. It is possible that it has been reused externally. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:42, 24 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:Lester B. Pearson statue.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality, redundant to File:Lester Pearson statue Ottawa.jpg ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transfer to Commons (with preservation of EXIF and of all original upload information). This photo is the original source of a cropped version on Commons. Please see the discussion about File:Statue of laurier.jpg, mutatis mutandis. Also, there are only two (other) photos of this subject in the Commons category. This photo may be useful because it shows a view quite different from the others: different season, angle, light and more of the surroundings. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:10, 24 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:PorterGardenTelescope.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 February 1#File:PorterGardenTelescope.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:EquatorialSundial.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 February 1#File:EquatorialSundial.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:PomonaEnvisionsTheFutureMural2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mural, Willing to AGF , but attributes uploader rather than mural creator, uploader is seemingly blocked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 23 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:Christina Chan-Nae.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, No context or notability given. User image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 23 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:ASOUE VFD Eye 2.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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 1#File:ASOUE_VFD_Eye_2.png}}

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:David Rocastle.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal as this seems to have been cropped from a photo of a 2D poster/hoarding. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 23 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:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.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 22:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bad JPEG}}, orphaned. Leyo 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recognise that the image is not suitable for article space on a long-term basis. I have been working with DMacks expanding a couple of articles, and drew this for the hexamethylbenzene article with the intent that DMacks would re-draw it for me using proper software. DMacks took the view that it was too detailed for that page, a view I find persuasive, which is why an alternative image which he provided which shows the overall process but not the mechanism is included in that article. I am of the view, however, that it would be suitable for the aromatization article which I substantially expanded last year as that article addresses the methods by which aromatic systems are formed, and this image illustrates one such (generalisable) method. I have not added the image to that article because I would prefer to wait for the proper version from DMacks (assuming he is still willing to provide it) and add it with suitable accompanying text. In the meantime, it is only on my user page and doing no harm. If admins look at my recent work in File space, they will see I have uploaded several images where DMacks has provided a replacement to Commons, and I have then requested their deletion as redundant, which is what I also plan to do with this image (and several others) if and when a replacement is available. Leyo, I realise that a lot of junk is uploaded to Wikipedia and needs deletion, but you might have asked me about this image. While it is a "Bad JPEG," it does clearly have encyclopedic content and my history is not that of a newbie uploading inappropriate images or someone clueless about how Wikipedia works. In any case, I hope you (and others reading this) will agree that the image should be kept until it becomes redundant, at which point I will CSD it myself. Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I have two questions: The image has been tagged for being transferred to Commons. Why didn't you undo this considering your explanation above? Even if it's just a draft, why didn't you upload it as a PNG? --Leyo 23:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, because I didn't think about it, but on reflection a keep local / do not transfer to Commons tag makes sense. This sort of tagging is happening much faster recently than I had recalled, and I had pretty much assumed the replacement would be made and the original deleted before this sort of issue came up. Good point, though.

Addendum: I have added a "do not move to Commons" tag. EdChem (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the second question, file formats are not my thing and I didn't / don't see why JPG / PNG matters when these sorts of files usually get redrawn as SVG anyway. Always happy to learn more, if you want to expand on this topic, Leyo. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as draft/source material for ongoing work. EdChem seems pretty diligent about deletion-tagging these sorts of images once they are no longer needed (admins can see this in his deleted-edits log). DMacks (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per EdChem. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:08, 23 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:Ancestry2010.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: needs release from copyright holder (OTRS can restore if provided by email) or feel free to create alternative czar 22:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GPL notice is for the Wordpress, not for all content published at Wordpress. This will need proof of permission. Main discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancestry2010.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that such images are a free software as Wordpress is. I just send an email to the author and wordpress to clear that out. What else I should do? Nonemansland (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonemansland: can you follow the instructions at c:COM:EMAIL? Let me know once you've done so. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to cite this as an evidence for that there are derivative works under GPL or similar licenses without required permission. Derivatives of WordPress code inherit the GPL license. Nonemansland (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I traced the map back to this blog post from the University of Virginia. There's no copyright notice on the page, so unless we hear otherwise from the map's creator, we have to assume that it's not published under an acceptable license. - Eureka Lott 00:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nonemansland: that refers to derivative works of the Wordpress software itself (i.e., the code). It doesn't refer to blogs posts created with the software. I believe they have a contact right there on the site if you want to try to get permission. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do a derivative work from the 2000 map of Wikipedia. Would that be a free work? The 2000 map was published on page 8 of a publication possibly by the Census Bureau [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonemansland (talk • contribs) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 map is indeed a Census Bureau product, but I don't understand what you mean about doing a derivative work. You can't map 2010 Census data using figures from 2000. - Eureka Lott 14:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonemansland and EurekaLott: he's referring to the threshold of originality. My 2c: It's a pretty close call, but with the placement of text and colors, it could go either way. Per the precautionary principle, it's probably best to ask for their permission or to recreate the map ourselves with our own colors and text placement. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:42, 28 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:AK-producer.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone came by and tag-bombed this. The first tag says to bring it here to find out if any of the hypothetical problems described there actually exist. (That seems like a tag deliberately designed for people too lazy to explicitly explain what the issue is, or to just bring it here themselves,but I guess that's another matter.) So, here we are. I'm assuming, out of the three possible scenarios described in the tag, they mean that it is ineligible for copyright? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues with the licensing and the ConocoPhillips' logo is also licensed under "non-free log". I guess the argument is whether the little red thing is simple enough, in my opinion I don't think it is, making fair use licensing appropriate. Salavat (talk) 11:37, 24 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:Nathan Lebron - ATV.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture appears to be a screen capture from a television program. If so, it is almost certainly NOT the author's own work. The source link given is dead. Additionally, the article Nathan Lebron is currently Proposed for Deletion, so this file could soon be out of scope anyhow. Safiel (talk) 21:37, 23 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:Plaidism.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 G6 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neus. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:57, 23 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:Plasticeditorlogo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic usage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)i[reply]

meh We usually allow uses some leeway with what they have in their userspace and I don't see any harm caused by this, but on the other hand the user has been inactive for ten years so they probably don't care one way or the other. I don't think I do either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 25 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:Pliny.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:06, 23 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:Plur.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic usage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:11, 23 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.