Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17[edit]

File:IPad Mini 4 ClearPhoto.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable own work claim, looks like a stolen press photo. Uploader has made similarly questionable claims on other images. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim is not credible. He made a similar claim that he photographed the image uploaded as File:XboxOneXfree.jpg with the source specified as "At my home with an Sony Alpha a7 24MP UHD 4K Camera." However, the image is copied from somewhere like at this site, but they just cropped out the bottom of the image to remove the watermark. -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:14, 18 July 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:Mara Corday 1955.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree. Deleted on Commons by User:Jcb at c:File:Mara Corday 1955.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:31, 17 July 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:GeraldinAustinTX.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This image's copyright is not as indicated. The file description page indicates it is available under GNU Free Documentation License and CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, the information page regarding the site's copyright policy (found here) does not indicate such licenses being applicable. It does state that images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but it does not state under what license. Further, the same document at (1) restricts other uses not indicated, which makes it incompatible with the indicated licenses. As such, the image is not free, and not available under the licenses indicated. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - permission has been given to copy files for use on site such as Wikipedia, but without a statement of an explicit free license of the sort claimed on this image upload. The other restrictions in the policy would indicate that this file is not free in the way that Wikipedia requires. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 17 July 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:Stephan Körner-Cavalry.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree. Deleted on Commons by User:Jcb at c:File:Stephan Körner-Cavalry.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:37, 17 July 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:Seaurchin2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

better crop, resolution, and attribution at File:Black Sea Urchin (Arbacia lixula) in Croatia.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 02:14, 18 July 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:National Alliance (United States).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 2018 July 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Alliance (United States).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:Rocket League The Vinyl Collection.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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caption at Music of Rocket League fails WP:NFCC#8. With this, the article has already 6 copyrighted works in it. This image does not seem relevant enough to be included unlike the audio files. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the image illustrates a section of the article that describes the albums released featuring Mike Ault and Hollywood Principle’s music for Rocket League. Chosen is the artwork that best represents the releases (an album that includes all material officially released) and the nature of the game itself, depicting its rocket-powered cars and hinting at its gameplay elements, allowing the viewer to identify the kind and type of releases that were made featuring Rocket League's music. Also mentioned is the name of the artist, described in the article itself as a community artist, allowing readers to also identify the kind of artwork the artist mentioned has produced for the Rocket League soundtrack. Tagging Anarchyte as the GA reviewer of the Music of Rocket League article for their thoughts on the matter, after giving the images a pass in their review. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can see both positives and negatives for including this. The positive being it visualises the gatefold design, a topic not everyone knows about by name. The negative is of course being the fact there are 5 other non-free works in the article and there are free equivalents on the gatefold article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:23, 24 June 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) 09:13, 1 July 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) 12:23, 9 July 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) 05:52, 17 July 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:Kittyfelton.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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal because the source listed dates to 1947 (i.e post 1923), but the image is presumably from a period before the publication listed. Is it pre 1923? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to track down a copy of the cited book (OCLC 3438908) to see if it has any details about the origin of this picture. Given that Katharine Felton, the subject of this image, is long deceased ~~and we have no other images of her,~~ seems like could be retagged as fair-use for that article. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make that "...if we have no other images of her." Commons has File:Katharine Felton.jpg and File:Kitty Felton.jpg, but neither of those has original source info either (only cited to the uploader and original photograph date, which is insufficient to establish publication date or artist, so cannot confirm PD-old). DMacks (talk) 19:41, 9 July 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) 05:52, 17 July 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:TweetFromEileenBurbidgeAndReplies.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Screengrab from Twitter" is not a valid public domain reason. The design of the Twitter UI, the profile photos and maybe some of the tweets will be copyrighted. BethNaught (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file has not been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. There is no non-free version available. It is fair use and has contextual significance. It is the minimum image possible. I've clearly identified where the image came from. Are you reporting a problem with the labelling as well as with the image itself or is it a case that the problem is saying "Screengrab from Twitter" is incorrect and something else should have been used instead? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire thing, screen elements and content are all copyrighted. Invalid public domain reasoning. The above response is arguing for fairbuse, but the licensing does not indicate a v non-free file nor is there a rationale provided with the file to explain how it is company with all of the non-free content guidelines.--Whpq (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I've re-read my post above and it isn't very clear. I understand that the current file is most likely not in keeping with policy so I am not objecting to the deletion. Delete away. The question is whether it is possible in any circumstances to upload a screenshot from twitter and stay within NFCC? The points I raised in my previous post were my attempt at listing possible reasons to keep within NFCC. Is the problem with the labelling of the file or is it a case that it isn't possible to use a Twitter screenshot? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each usage of a non-free image requires its own justification on how it meets all of the non-free content criteria. Given that is the case, it's really not possible to say whether "it is possible in any circumstances to upload a screenshot from twitter and stay within NFCC" without the explanation of circumstances of its use. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NFCC#7 requires that non-free images be used in at least one article. Is there an article in which this image can be used? BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing and BethNaught: I've overwritten the file with the Tweet viewed using an old Twitter interface, so you can focus on the content instead of the design of the Twitter UI or profile photos. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not used in any articles so fair use wouldn't apply and even if it was there would have to be a valid fair use rationale which I don't think could be effectively created. There is no valid use for this image and this is no different from taking a photograph of a page of a copyrighted book and uploading it. Text is copyrightable. Doing it in photograph form does not change that and this would have been deleted and rev'deled already if it was written in text form on an article. --Majora (talk) 19:48, 21 July 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:Washington Redskins uniforms.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 2018 July 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Washington Redskins uniforms.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.