Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29[edit]

File:US Presidents by state of primary affiliation.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is outdated. The 2012 does not reflect the Trump presidency. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 29 March 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:Welcome to Harrison billboard.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Mattsrealm (talk) 14:42, 29 March 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:Bernheim Sign.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: mark as de minimis, move to Commons. czar 07:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (sign), there is no FOP for 2D works in the US FASTILY 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't concur that a simply designed sign is typical non-free content. Also, I can't imagine that Bernheim Forest would ever contest their sign being used for an article about them. But if stupid U.S. law says this is "non-free", then convert to obvious fair use, at least for the forest article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good point on the simplicity of the (readable) text. The icon on the other hand may be an issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That icon might be de minimis. There is no way to photograph this sign without the icon. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 12 April 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:Enaya Afzal Nine.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 ⚡ 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal slideshow? Querying as this doesn't seem to be used yet. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is the requested course of action?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several of the included photos violate Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights as private photos without evidence of consent, including photos of minors. Also - while a personal photo in userspace might be OK - Wikipedia is not supposed to host extensive private photo albums. GermanJoe (talk) 16:10, 1 April 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:Clark Shao.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence for own work claim. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep what kind of evidence is required for a photo that I have taken? photo is mine and I have released it into the public domain 21:144, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Image is low resolution and without any camera info in EXIF. I did a Google image search and found this image on many websites. --Wcam (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List the websites? I uploaded that imagine to the public domain there for I gave full authority to release it to the public. 15:38, 22 march 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manunited20 (talk • contribs)
Google image search here. Please show evidence that you have previously released this image to the public domain or permitted anyone to use this image for any purpose. --Wcam (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of permission. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 12 April 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:Stel Pavlou 2016.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 F3 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that the image is "released as a free license" which is great. Unfortunately, that isn't specific enough. There are literally dozens of free licenses and we need to know which one. For a list of free licenses please see c:COM:Copyright tags (specifically the section about Free Creative Commons licenses are those are the most common). Without clarification we can't keep the image. Majora (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellabellla: You don't seem to understand. The file page isn't the problem. The source page is the problem. The source page, AKA https://stelpavlou.com/2016/09/23/a-new-author-photo/, needs to be edited to state a proper license. In the meantime, please do not just reupload images into a new file like that. I've added that one to this request. --Majora (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously misunderstood. I will send message to the author's webpage. If they update it, what is the best way to proceed? Thanks Michellabellla (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellabellla: Message me on my talk page if that occurs. If this is not done within 7 days the images will be deleted. As a side note, please don't use the talk page for internal discussions like this. Please respond directly to this section, here, by pressing the edit button near the section header. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 12 April 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:NLE-Uniform-PHI.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 2017 May 31. czar 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NLE-Uniform-PHI.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-MIL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-PIT.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-STL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLW-Uniform-COL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:AFCW-Uniform-DEN.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LSUFootballUni.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MissStFootballUni.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLE-Uniform-MIA.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-Hanwha.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-Doosan.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KHL-Uniform-VIT.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALE-Uniform-TB.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sports uniform of the Cleveland Indians.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALC-Uniform-KC.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALW-Uniform-LAA.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALW-Uniform-TEX.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLE-Uniform-ATL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLW-Uniform-ARI.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-KT.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Frank Griffin in 2016.jpeg[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 ⚡ 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, derived from same original as [1] – Train2104 (t • c) 17:02, 29 March 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:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader keeps on inserting this unfree file everywhere. See for instance Climate of Europe, where it's useless, or several talk pages, a namespace where these kind of images must not be used. The uploader has been referred to the appropriate policies, but in spite of that, he's consistently refusing to remove it from articles or talk pages where it should not be used. Discasto (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remove from all articles. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Iberian Peninsula and Climate of Spain. --Discasto (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? I did remove it from the talk pages. Wasn't me who posted them again. I just maintained it on the pages where it belongs, which are Climate of Europe, Climate of Spain, Geography of Spain, Iberian Peninsula and Spain.

This image file is from the public Spanish and Portuguese meteorology agencies AEMET and IPMA which can be used without commercial purposes. Wikipedia is not with commercial purposes. So why are you still keeping this same discussion which we had before? --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted this image I did put all of the things I had to put related to it, the source, that is of free use... I can post it again if you delete it and this can be a discussion without ending. It's senseless to discuss this again as we did it before, the map can be used with fair use and it's only on 5 pages from the hundreds of thousands that Wikipedia has. Isn't that fair use? Just 5 pages? Wasn't me who posted them again in the talk pages, check it again. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why on earth would you want to remove the actual file??Inactive user 20171 (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody is talking about removing anything (although it's important to acknowledge that Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia). What is required is to fulfill the Wikipedia requirements on fair use. @TechnicianGB: I don't think you understand that Wikipedia is not only for non commercial purposes. Free content is defined as requiring, among others, commercial usage. When that's not possible, it can be used under a fair use condition. But it's not a license washing procedure. It is restrictive and follows a number of criteria, which I guess nobody has carefully read: WP:NFCCP. In particular, Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material, Minimal usage, and Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Finally, Non-free content is allowed only in articles. Therefore, this image cannot be used in talk pages (it's still there) and must be used only in articles where the image is relevant (that is, those related to the climate of the Iberian Peninsula). Why on Earth is a climate map of the Iberian Peninsula relevant in Climate of Europe? Just to name a few. It's arguable why it must be in Spain (provided that we have a specific article about Climate of Spain). No more (and no less) than that. --Discasto (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the pages Climate of Spain, Geography of Spain, Iberian Peninsula and Spain that image is a must. We can make a discussion if this belongs to Climate of Europe, but I think it belongs there too for two reasons: The first one is that before I inserted that image, there was another user made image of Spain (and not the whole Iberian Peninsula like now) which I replaced with this official map as that map was quite wrong. Second, because the map of the classification of Europe is bad, is user maded, and this one is from an official source and provides milimetric climate ranges for the Iberian Peninsula, the one from Europe is maded for a big scale. And even third, because the Iberian Peninsula is a relevant piece of Europe... --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is become clear to me the user has uploaded the fair use file in order to make more compelling arguments (and no need at all: you have 1981-2010 AEMET/IPMA data averages and you have Köppen criteria, you don't need a copyrighted map for the 1971-2000 period in the talk page of Almería et al.). Even in the mainspace cases of "Climate of Spain" and "Iberian Peninsula" its status is dubious as a lower quality (sketchier?) free version could be possibly obtained. And I want to make sure the argument about the precise color of the pixel corresponding to the city of Almeria certainly not being a "must" for climate of Europe is not going over TechnicianGB's head.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between Almería and the page Climate of Europe ¿? No one mentions nothing about Almería in that page, the map is for the whole Iberian Peninsula, lol. And again, I deleted it from the talk pages... wasn't me who inserted them again... --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this already? It is a retarded discussion No one is currently using the file inappropriately.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#1. Data is not copyrighted, the particular map is. A free representation map can be created using the same data. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop That is a pretty dumb thing to say, frankly speaking. There is no free equivalent. Create one yourself and then it will violate WP:NFCC#1. Until then it doesn't. Btw, deleting the file isn't even being discussed as an option.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive user 20171. It doesn't seem to be a dumb thing to say. Frankly speaking your comment misses the only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (because I get the encyclopedic purpose is to give a general overview of the different climatic regions in the Iberian Peninsula, not to use the file as source). Deleting the file might be a valid option. I lean towards favouring the deletion.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AEMET/IPMA climate map is all wrong, it looks like somebody drawn it in kindergarten just to explain the climates of the Iberian Peninsula.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:140:90F7:FC85:62EE (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asqueladd the file can be used for non-commercial purposes and is currently being used where appropriate. It cannot be replicated since the data is only in the hands of the Spanish and Portuguese meteorological agencies (unless we want to draw an exact copy of the most accurate and only official climatic map of Spain without crediting the source). We are also spurring on an unstable editor who has been a real headache over this issue by continuing to discuss this.(he has requested its deletions on grounds of editor insensitivity to climate change, independence of Catalonia and the Basque Country from Spain, unification of Portugal with Galicia among other crazy reasons) Inactive user 20171 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia's purposes, files that can be used used for non-commercial purposes are still non-free files, because they don't meet the definition of free content at WP:F. All non-free files must meet the 10 WP:NFCC regardless of whether they are "all rights reserved" or "non-commercial use only". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive user 20171 yes, for me this can be closed too, I fully agree. It's a very stupid discussion at still, after all has been cleared. The file is free to use without commercial purposes, it's from an official public Spanish agency and covers the whole Iberian Peninsula. Even in a parallel universe with 20 countries inside the Iberian Peninsula it still covers the whole Iberia. And, btw, this file even didn't have to be sized small, as it's clearly stated in the copyright page of the source (last pages) that can be used without commercial purposes. --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnicianGB: Alright, this is getting out of control. Maps are 100% copyrightable. Period. No questions. That is why we can't use something like Google Maps. You also seem to have a clear misunderstanding of what constitutes a free license on Wikipedia. A free license means that anyone can use or modify the image for any purpose, including commercially. While Wikipedia is not a commercial entity a free image must be able to be used commercially. So if this image has a non-commercial restriction on it, it is not free. See WP:F3 for the speedy deletion criterion for images with that restriction. If this image is non-free then it can only be used on a limited set of articles and only if every article has an accompanying fair use rationale.
For that reason, I am saying that this image should be removed from all articles except Climate of Spain where it has a valid fair use rationale. All other instances are in violation of our fair use policy. --Majora (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: ok then, but this file needs to stay at least in 3 different articles, it would be a fair use anyways. The articles are Climate of Europe: Reason, official climate map of Portugal and Spain i.e. Iberian Peninsula even including Andorra. That's a very important part of Europe.

Iberian Peninsula, another page where it has to be without doubt, as the map itself is for the whole Iberian Peninsula.

And of course Climate of Spain. I think that with those 3 it's a heavily fair use. I even see correct their use in those 5 pages, as we have hundreds of similar pages of geography and climates where it can be used, but it's in 5. It was in more than 5 in one time, and how about in those 3 as those 3 mentioned before are heavily linked to this topic? Of course in those 3, the page of the Climate of Spain is inside, just as Iberian Peninsula and Climate of Europe. Specially for the climate of Europe too, as shows how diverse Europe can be, as in Iberia you can find 13 different Köppen climates. --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB: Then you have to make complete and valid fair use rationales for every article you want to use that image on. The burden on FURs is on the editor that wants to use the image. To be honest, per policy, I can summarily remove the image from every page that doesn't have a FUR right now since it is considered a copyright violation to have that image there without a complete and valid FUR explaining why the image is there. If you need assistance filling out the FURs or you have questions on whether or not it would be valid please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons? I'd prefer to settle this peacefully, because this was TechnicianGB's first file.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:E840:A65B:F357:61A9 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. As already explained, this image is not a free image. Transferring it to Commons would result in its immediate deletion as a copyright violation. --Majora (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I have commented out the image from every article besides Climate of Spain which is the only article that has a filled out and valid fair use rationale. Repeated use of this image without following our fair use policy is considered copyright infringement. Once valid fair use rationales are provided for additional uses of this image it can be placed back on the articles. --Majora (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: no one applied with you, I support Inactive user 20171 and TechnicianGB opinion, stop doing those editions because you are the only one which thinks that, Wikipedia is a place with democracy, ok? --Pfarla (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pfarla: Actually, we very clearly are not a democracy. It is actually on the "What we are not" page. If you continue to violate copyright policies your editing privileges will be revoked. It is as simple as that. I've tried to explain that we need valid fair use rationales for every use of that image. If you choose to ignore me that is your choice. But we are certainly not a democracy. --Majora (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: ok, but no one made a consensus with you to change the editions, so don't come with a moral superiority just because you have more editions and don't call me a disruptive editor because actually you're the one who makes such editions by himself against 3 other users. --Pfarla (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: how can I do that? --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Please guide TechnicianGB and me, and we will do what is required.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are very clearly stated in WP:NFCCP. With regard to valid articles, they should be those that: "[Contextual significance] Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Therefore, only Climate of Spain and, to some extent, Iberian Peninsula are valid candidates. The understanding of Climate of Europe does not increase at all by including this non-free image. --Discasto (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know also how to do that FUR to put the image too on Climate of Europe. Majora told me that 2 days ago, I also left a message in his (or her?) talk page but it hasn't been answered yet, maybe the user didn't connect. I am waiting for instructions to make the FUR, together with Inactive user 20171. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You simply can't as it does not fulfill the requirements. Fair-use is not something that applies to a picture but to the use of a picture in an article. The main idea is really simple. "We're violating the copyright? Can we claim fair-use to carry out a particular copyright violation?" If the picture "significantly increases the understanding of the article" we can do it, but only in said article. Otherwise, we can't. As explained, the use of a copyrighted picture is something that has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. In particular, the condition is clearly fulfilled in Climate of Spain, to some extent in Iberian Peninsula, but not in Climate of Europe. Is it that difficult to understand? --Discasto (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking a little bit to respond. I was busy with real life things and kinda forgot about the ping. Anyways, @TechnicianGB and Inactive user 20171: I completely agree with Discasto and they really do explain it nicely. The image is definitely fine in Climate of Spain and probably fine in Iberian Peninsula. it may even be fine in Climate of Portugal. Any other use I do not feel like it would meet the fair use policy. In order to make it acceptable, the burden is on you to fill out full and valid fair use rationales. The instructions for that can be on found here: WP:FUR. I will not do this for you since it is not on me to prove why the image is acceptable. It is on you. You can follow the example that is already on the file page if you want but it has to be filled out before it is placed on an article.

Now, this can all be moot if it is decided that the image is replaceable with a free variant. That really hasn't been solved. We have plenty of free maps out there that are not restrained by copyright. Have you looked for a free version of this map? --Majora (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it shouldn't be in Climate of Europe but it should definitely be in Spain which has a prominent climate section.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechnicianGB Can you do the FUR for Spain and for Iberian Peninsula (where it is most needed)? I am too busy with work for wikipedia over next days.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we all agree that the image is rationale in Iberian Peninsula too (obviously in Climate of Spain was from before) we doesn't need a FUR then. A FUR would be needed for further articles.

The file is not needed in the page of Spain as in the page of Spain in the climate paragraph the first phrase links to the page Climate of Spain so it's ok with this. --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:16, 7 May 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.