Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25[edit]

File:1951-Australian-florin-obverse.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: Relicense as free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Australian denomination designed before 1 May 1969, in 1951 (see Commons:Currency). Eye snore 03:08, 25 August 2018 (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:Ana's Cross.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: Was relisted to Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_August_31#File:Ana's_Cross.jpg. Pinging B (talk · contribs) since when I did accidentally close this too early and then reopened, it seems like the discussion continued in two places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the {{Keep local}}. It was originally added citing that this image has no educational value, but I believe it actually does; it depicts a monument in a national park. It's also worth noting the Commons version of this file is being used on another wiki, so obviously it has some cross-wiki value. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep this copy overlapping the Commons file. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the image was copied to Commons at all. It is User:Gilderien's old no longer used userpage photo. It should never have been moved to Commons and yes, it should be deleted from Wikipedia if it's not going to be used. --B (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (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:Scout Association of the People's Republic of China.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: Remove from Scouting and Guiding in mainland China. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Scouting and Guiding in mainland China. The rationale is not specific to the use in that article; the image is not used to identify the organization Scouting and Guiding in mainland China, especially since it is not an organization. (WP:NFCC#10c) Removal from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic, and there is no critical commentary on the logo itself. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Scouting and Guiding in mainland China, keep in Scout Association of the People's Republic of China per nom. Salavat (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2018 (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) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Scouting and Guiding in mainland China. On a procedural note, you should remove these from articles without valid FURs first and only bring them to FFD if that is challenged. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Finnusertop: It appears that JJMC89 did do that in the case of Scouting and Guiding in mainland China, but the uploader subsequently added the missing rationale and then re-added the file to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Marchjuly, I should have checked the histories. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 29 August 2018 (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:Les Scouts - Fédération des Scouts Baden-Powell de Belgique.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: Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium. The rationale is not specific to the use in that article; the image is not placed in the infobox at the top of the article. (WP:NFCC#10c) Removal from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic, and there is no critical commentary on the logo itself. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium, keep in Les Scouts per nom. Salavat (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2018 (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) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:32, 25 August 2018 (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:Scouts et Guides Pluralistes de Belgique logo.svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium. The rationale is not specific to the use in that article; the image is not placed in the infobox at the top of the article. (WP:NFCC#10c) Removal from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic, and there is no critical commentary on the logo itself. (WP:NFCC#8) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, there is critical commentary on the logo itself. --Egel _Reaction? 21:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I don't see any independently sourced commentary about the logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: look at Guiding_and_Scouting_in_Belgium#Scouts_et_Guides_Pluralistes_de_Belgique and you will see the same explanation for the logo that is in Scouts et Guides Pluralistes de Belgique. I have no clue why it is in Guiding_and_Scouting_in_Belgium. It seems like pointlessly duplicated content that is only there to justify having the logo in a separate article. The entire Guiding_and_Scouting_in_Belgium#Emblems section should be removed - the page already links to the two respective organizations and there is no reason to show or discuss their logos here too. --B (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. It isn't critical commentary though. It is just an explanation of the logo based on what the organization wrote. I agree that the whole section should go. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B: The section "Emblems" is older than the article "Scouts et Guides Pluralistes de Belgique". Someone copied the information, including the logo, to a new article, but forgot to remove the information from the article "Guiding and Scouting in Belgium". Removal from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium on basis of minimal usage (WP:NFCC#3?) is ok with me. --Egel _Reaction? 10:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Guiding and Scouting in Belgium, keep in Scouts et Guides Pluralistes de Belgique per nom. Salavat (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2018 (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) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (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:2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification status.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused map, no foreseeable use FASTILY 07:30, 25 August 2018 (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:Logo candidature Baku - Expo 2025.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unclear if this is below TOO in country of origin to actually qualify as PD-simple FASTILY 07:32, 25 August 2018 (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:Logo Candidature Paris - Expo 2025.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo, unclear if this is below TOO in country of origin to actually qualify as PD-simple FASTILY 07:32, 25 August 2018 (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:Logo candidature Osaka - Expo 2025.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo, unclear if this is below TOO in country of origin to actually qualify as PD-simple FASTILY 07:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like it would pass a threshold of originality in the US. There are a handful of cases that when you put together a whole bunch of "simple uncopyrightable shapes", you get something copyrightable. Example: Runstadler Studios v. MCM Partnership (1991) [1]. Runstadler Studios made a glass sculpture out of 39 clear glass rectangles stacked to form a spiral. The court held that their sculpture was copyrightable. (They lost the case because they couldn't prove infringement - they coudln't prove that MCM Partnership actually did copy them - but their copyright was valid.) A clear rectangle of glass is not copyrightable. 39 clear rectangles of glass are not rectangle. Arranging things in a spiral is not copyrightable. But somehow when you combine all of those together, it is copyrightable. --B (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2018 (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:Albano bogdo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan; possibly unfree file (Tineye shows it on several websites since 2014). Certes (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Albano bogdo was recently deleted per A7. It was probably about sq:Albano Bogdo, an actor in Apartment 2XL. Certes (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2018 (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:Pokemon Go.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 to Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_August_31#File:Pokemon_Go.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, File:Pokémon GO logo.svg —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2018 (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:Dickfrancisgalaxyjan57.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 to Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_August_31#File:Dickfrancisgalaxyjan57.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is actually nonfree, it is evidently replaceable by any number of images found at Project Gutenberg or at the Internet Archive, or by scores of copyright-nonrenewed images in SF magazines of the 1950s. If it is actually free -- and I suspect it is -- the file page should be revised and the image transferred to Commons. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2018 (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:Abhirup G2.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. Well, the actual problem is that a scan or a photograph of an object can be copyrighted if the object in question is copyrighted. The photo/scan itself is fine, but if we don't have any information about the copyright status of the scanned/photographed object that's a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image clearly is a scan from a printed source such as a newspaper. Claim to being the copyright holder isn't credible. Whpq (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I am not sure whether I need to answer here in addition to answering in the talk page. Thanks for the scrutiny. The photograph was collected from the subject himself. This was a passport sized printed photograph (what one often submits to visa application or municipality related requirements). The photograph was scanned by none other than myself. There is no question of a newspaper photograph coming here. The photograph is not copyrighted by any stretch of imagination. I am not aware of any rule that would mean only digitally captured photograph can be acceptable. If there is any I then have to make a new endeavour. Seeuhere (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Seeuhere[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:Ruth Kirk --.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of image is not subject of page to which the image is attached. Instead, the subject of this image is the wife of the late Louis G. Kirk who was in the employ of the NPS. Additionally, she is currently living and is a natural-born citizen of the USA. Also, the interviews of Ms. Kirk (wife of Louis G Kirk) were conducted previous to the the documentary's air date of 2009 (http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/media_detail/822). Please see the external links section of the page to which this image is attached for an actual photograph of the subject in order to compare with the image that was uploaded.Dabrowndabnsh (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Dabrowndabnsh: wow, good catch. I see from [2] that the Ruth Kirk in this photo is an author and photographer - probably a notable person herself who should have an article - but most certainly not the first lady of New Zealand. I have removed the photo from the article. FYI, when there is such an obviously incorrect photo, you can go ahead and remove it from the article yourself - you don't have to let it sit there for a week. --B (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @B: Thanks, but I really don't deserve any credit. I have had intermittent contact with Ruth for about 8 years and never realized that she was interviewed for this series. I just happened to be watching the series again and then tried to see what Wiki had on she and her husband. As far as the immediate deletion - thanks for the tip. I am literally a newbie having joined just for the sake of this edit. Consequently, I was concerned that I allow an appropriate period of time for my suggestions to be reviewed for content and/or mechanics. Thanks for short-circuiting the progress. Dabrowndabnsh (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created Ruth Kirk (author) and she is deceased since April 2018, though I really detest using images under a claim of fair use for someone who died so recently. She was a prolific author and a very public person pre-1978 and she continued to be a public person in the digital camera age. We have every expectation that we could obtain a free photo of her and we shouldn't be using a copyrighted one. So I still would delete this photo rather than incorporate it into the new article --B (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2018 (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.