Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20[edit]

File:State Office Block Sydney.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in a list article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (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:Magic 1152 Logo 2013.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: Relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as although the logo isn't used in any commentary it was the logo of that radio station at that time and therefore imho on that basis should be kept. We should keep historical things like this not delete them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is contrary to the policy and guideline linked above. We don't keep non-free media because it is historical, you like them, to decorate articles, or because you disagree with policy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a standard typeface and some shapes and colors. It might be below TOO. Wikiacc (¶) 05:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. We don't keep former non-free logos just because they might be WP:ITSHISTORIC, we keep them if they meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4; moreover, edit warring over a CSD template by removing it when it clearly says not to do so if you're the file's uploader is not the best way to resolve any disagreements over the file's use. The uploader should follow the template's instructions and challenge the CSD tag on the file's page. They can even add the template {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the file's page if they want. The admin who reviews the CSD will check the talk page, read what's posted, and then figure out if the file should be further discussed at FFD or deleted. Edit warring by repeatedly removing the CSD template is only going to lead to a block per WP:EW/WP:3RR. In this case, however, it seems that there is a good chance that this file might be {{PD-logo}} depending upon how liberally you want to interpret c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, and it can be moved to Commons if it is; in my opinion, however, even if it's not PD in the UK, it's certainly PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States which means it probably OK to convert the licensing to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. This is something which is often done for UK logos which are not simple enough to be PD in the UK, but are simple enough to be PD in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2019 (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:Thermopylae by Dimitri Hadzi.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: resolved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FREER, the photograph should be released under a free license or one that is could replace it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image meets WP:FREER. The uploader has declared that they are the copyright holder for the image and identified the artists as the copyright holder of the sculpture in the "Author or copyright owner" field. In the the "Other information" field, the uploader has stated "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain:" Ther eis no specific license stated so perhaps we can have @Another Believer: verify which free license was intended and tag accordingly (how does one do that for a freeish image?) -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say here. CC BY-SA 4.0? Whatever is standard is fine. I still don't understand what I'm doing wrong, or what I need to be doing differently when uploading files of contemporary works of art under fair use (using the Wizard). After I click on "This is a depiction of a copyrighted three-dimensional work or building", then select "Other 3-dimensional creative work (sculpture, etc.)", what do I put in the "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" field? This shouldn't be so difficult. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: CC BY-SA 4.0 would be acceptable but I do not know how this would be documented. I've asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#How to document licensing for WP:FREER images. -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See File:Indian Hunter by Paul Manship, Boston.jpg for an example of how to do it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JJMC89, Done for this image and the one below. I still don't know how to enter this information in the Upload file Wizard, but hopefully at least these two file pages have been updated correctly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 21 December 2019 (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:Transparent Horizon by Louise Nevelson.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: resolved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FREER, the photograph should be released under a free license or one that is could replace it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image meets WP:FREER. The uploader has declared that they are the copyright holder for the image and identified the artists as the copyright holder of the sculpture in the "Author or copyright owner" field. In the the "Other information" field, the uploader has stated "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain:" Ther eis no specific license stated so perhaps we can have @Another Believer: verify which free license was intended and tag accordingly (how does one do that for a freeish image?) -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, Please see above discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 20 December 2019 (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:Ani Petrosyan an Armenian actress.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 ⚡ 02:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. I've searched OTRS for "Ani Petrosyan", "Ani Petrosian" and "Hovhannisyan" without managing to track down anything relevant. It's been almost a month ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2019 (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:Donald Duck.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: keep. Appears to be valid fair use, and the status of the image on a different project is not relevant. RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File is deleted on it.wikipedia, this image is copyrighted. Rots61 (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the file has an adequate (although brief) fair-use and is the primary image on the page. I see no reason for this FFD. Salavat (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the image has a valid fair use rationale for the article on its subject and it is the primary identification used in the infobox on the character. Aspects (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2019 (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:AdlibSpecimen.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar image with different borders on Commons. The one on Wikipedia is probably not needed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as uploader was apparently not notified and the entry was misformatted anyhow
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (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:Money cant buy happiness.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Money cant buy happiness.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Blurry, grainy, no apparent use after deletion from one page where it was used due to the page being overloaded with images. Hog Farm (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2019 (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:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.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: Withdrawn per previous discussions. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to simple to be eligible for copyright in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been the subject of several previous discussions:

At the 2015 discussion, George Ho stated The flag is still copyrightable in Australia. Also, the shape forming a U upside down may help the flag surpass threshold of originality in the US. If you disagree, then tag it as "{{PD-ineligible-USonly}}" as Commons won't allow this flag to be uploaded under jurisdiction of home country. At the 2017 discussion Andrwsc wrote Per [1] the "centre of the flag shows a white dhari (dancer’s headdress) and is a symbol for all Torres Strait Islanders." I do not think that component of the flag is an "obvious" simple geometric shape. At the 2017 and 2018 discussions the file was retained as fair-use. I don't think anything has changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:22, 21 December 2019 (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.