Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

File:Animal Crossing Pocket Camp instructions.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Screenshot of a video game) That the player taps the touchscreen to move the character is an aspect that can be adequately described in prose without fair use visualization, if it need be explained at all. I had previously removed the image as lacking contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) but was reverted. A fair use image of the gameplay depicting concepts that cannot be adequately described through prose alone may be appropriate, but this is not that image. czar 07:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Text in the article explicitly explains how it was adapted for this platform. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the text, which doesn't address the game's touch mechanics, nor are the touch mechanics unique or opaque enough from any other touch game to require a visualization. Feel free to replace it with an image of actual gameplay. czar 05:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#8: presence does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:47, 6 November 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:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg

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 December 12. FASTILY 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg (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:BRP Lake Caliraya.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, missing verifiable source, heavily watermarked FASTILY 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned non-free file, fails NFCC#1, NFCC#7; replaced by File:MT Jose Rizal.jpg. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned file with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 11:27, 11 November 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:H+ Cover 1.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability and contextual significance. There is not any sentence about magazine in designated article Transhumanism. The file was excluded from another designated article Humanity+ ([1]), though there was respective section. Alex Spade (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#8: does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:34, 6 November 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:The Brazen Head (logo).png

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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 14#File:The Brazen Head (logo).png. ℯ xplicit 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: Article about an historic building (The Brazen Head) is illustrated by a CC licensed image of building. Business logo (which does not appear on building anyway) does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding.
Fails WP:NFCC#1: A CC licensed image of building is available and is already used.
Fails WP:NFCC#5: In the context of an article about a historic building, the logo used by the present owners only in their website is not encyclopedic.
Should fail WP:NFCC#7: The non-free image is only being used in the article because an editor has ignored NFCC#8 and repeatedly reverted to include the image. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about both the business and the building. A business's logo is an acceptable fair use of an image in the infobox for identification of the business. It passes WP:NFCC#1 because there is no free equivalent for the logo. A free image of the building cannot replace a logo and for that reason there are two separate infobox fields for Template:Infobox building. It passes WP:NFCC#5 because the article is also about the business, thus the logo being encyclopedic. It passes WP:NFCC#7 because it is currently in use in the article. It passes WP:NFCC#8 because it is being used for identification purposes of the business, it increases the readers' understanding of the business and its omission is detrimental to the understanding of the business. Overall, the businesses's logo is being used in the infobox for identification purposes of the business and is an acceptable fair use of the logo, just as it is for numerous other business articles across Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A misapplication of the fair use criteria; there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in any article, and there is already a freely licensed image which clearly identifies the building and its use as a pub. A design used by the building's current owners—Stepmark Inns—on its website does not meet NFCC#8: "Criterion 8, which every non-free file must satisfy, requires that the image not merely be educational, but "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This means, first, that the image must either address something that is discussed in the text of the page, or add in a meaningful and substantive way to the understanding of the overall topic of the page. It is not enough for the image to provide some additional information beyond what the text covers. Secondly, the image must make it significantly easier for the reader to understand what the page discusses, beyond what the text, alone, can convey." It is neither educational nor adds anything to a reader's understanding of the topic. Infobox fields—and infoboxes—are not mandatory; just because a parameter exists for a logo, it does not, and in many instances of historic buildings probably should not, mean it must be used. Also, the uploader was notified that there were issues with the use of the image on 3 November. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor: This discussion should be relisted since the nominator failed to notify the uploader, me (the person who reverted the deletion and recommended starting a discussion here) or tagged the image on the article about this discussion. I have notified the uploader and tagged the image in the article. The article is on my watchlist, but that was not enough to know about this discussion. Aspects (talk) 20:52, 12 November 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:University of pakokku,location.jpg

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: image copied from Google Maps John of Reading (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous copyvio. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 6 November 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:Radox1949.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image has a restored copyright as it was published after the URAA date (1 January 1946 in Australia). This image fails NFCC#1 as it is replaceable; unless this image has been used for historical context, then this will need to be detailed with the non-free rationale. Flickerd (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, I forgot I ever uploaded this. I agree with Flickerd that under current law this no longer is appropriate to be published here.
Delete per NFCC#8: does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:32, 6 November 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:Rebecca Attending Audio Launch Of Her Film In 2014.Png

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of "own work" not credible. Multiple results for google image search:[2]. Uploader has made previous attempts to upload images of this subject found on the internet: File:Actress Rebecca.png, File:Image.Jpg. Begoon 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous copyvio. The source website has copyright notice and no credit is given to a photographer. Subject is a living person and opportunity exists for a free image to be created. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:12, 6 November 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:Kirkland High School Crest.png

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely to be uploader's own work, should be converted to fair use and given a proper source Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a possibility that this is the uploader's own work, but it is clearly not the same as the crest used by the school: the colouring of the motto scroll is wrong and the colouring of the saltire is wrong. It is thus not an accurate representation of the crest used by the school. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this site has the crest and as noted by user:Neil S Walker, it looks different than the crest uploaded. Conversion to fair use would not be appropriate with an inaccurate crest. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a true representation. Discrepancy can be observed between the actual and this file. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 7 November 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:Queen Elizabeth Standing in Front of the Waterloo Vase.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterloo Vase still exists and a free image could be made or obtained. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#1. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vase is inside of the palace gardens. Is that part accessible to the public? If not, it would pass the NFCC#1 test since it would be very difficult to obtain a free image of the vase. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Guided tours of the garden are available to members of the public. Search engines also return images of members of the public posing with the vase. Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:56, 7 November 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:Larry Parks 1950.jpg

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. ℯ xplicit 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no scan of reverse, not clear that copyright symbol was missing Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep Ambiguous copyright status. The second - currently used - file that was uploaded is obviously a cleaned up, cropped and monochromed version of the first. The first carries an annotation that the National Screen Service Corp exert control of the image's license and license it for display "only in connection with the exhibition of this picture at your theatre. Must be returned immediately thereafter!" IANAL but my reading of Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. 349 U.S. 322 (1955) is that NSSC held exclusive rights over the distribution and licensing of NSS numbered (this one is 50-588) images. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading Light show's comment below, I have to concur that, for all the information printed on the original version, there is not a clear and visible "copyright" notice. It is this precise "failure to comply with required formalities" that places these press kit photos in the public domain in the U.S. Ambiguity remains about whether the rear of the image is endorsed with a copyright notice, but as this does not seem to have been the general practice, and given the amount of information printed on the obverse, I will accept that this may indeed be in the PD. Neil S. Walker (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: :For studio publicity photos like this one, which includes the person's name, studio name, film name, licensing text, where it was printed, and more information, any copyright notice would have been on the front. If you look at any or all the other similar publicity photos with that information, when there was a notice it was on the front alongside the studio name. If you're still concerned, and do a copyright search for any year, you'll see that there are no publicity photos of him that were ever registered. And FWIW, I've never seen any film publicity photo that was ever registered. That "please return" wordage was for theaters, so they wouldn't misuse or sell photos. It was for the hardcopy of the photo, but unrelated to anything copyright related.

Any studio printing up 10,000 press kits with such photos and mailing them worldwide, hoping for stories to be published with photos, would be accomplishing the exact opposite if it included a copyright notice warning the press they first need permission to reprint it. See Film still. --Light show (talk) 22:45, 6 November 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.