Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7

File:WuXiBiologicsshijiazhuang.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be own work but given the uploader's other copyright violations, the claim is not credible. The image has slanted banded shading across the left side of the image that is similar in style to this site which is the source of the other copyvios. Whpq (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sketchy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (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:Kimiko Mohri 1981.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 G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image of a deceased person is used in a list article and is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2020 (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:Gorgo 1961.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 local version for Commons version, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gorgo 1961.jpg. Ə XPLICIT 01:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commons:File:Gorgo 1961.jpg claims that this is PD due to lack of a copyright notice, and there is a larger version of the same on Commons so the local file can simply be deleted if it's PD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me what PD is, I might be able to make a desicion. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 00:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WinnerWolf99: Sorry, public domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I think that no copyright notice was meant to imply public domain, so Delete the local version and swap it for the commons version wherever the local version is being used. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 20:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and WinnerWolf99: Keep (edit: keep and relicense per Clindberg below. Don't delete in favor of the Commons file as we have a much higher resolution in file history), Copyright 1961 (unreadable on photo) and Copyright © 19?? Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer ? It could still be PD if the copyright wasn't renewed, but figuring that out (it is very easy to screw up) is a bit of a bitch. The "no notice" claim is at least verifiably wrong. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see. I've sent the Commons file to deletion requests. Probably worth saying withdraw Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to deal with a
bitch
so I'll wait until someone else figures it out. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could've said "pain" but I couldn't recall the word (for that context) when I wrote the above so I just wrote "bitch", though frankly, it is a bit of a bitch. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: Two different poster versions are linked here. One that's taller (but with the same base image) and one that's nearly identical. Both have different colors compared to the file that was uploaded here. Both have copyright notices. It doesn't really matter because they're all very similar designs and even if only one version had a notice it would become very difficult to defend a public domain status based on the absence of a notice. In this particular case, I found https://www.pinterest.com/pin/295759900514982256/. Same design and the same colors and the line at the bottom can be read: "1712 copyright © 1960-Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. All rights reserved. Country of origin U.S.A. Property of national screen service corp Licensed for display only in connection with the exhibition of this picture at your theatre. Must be returned immediately thereafter. 61/36" — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commons file should be deleted unless it can be reliably established that the US copyright was not renewed, in which case c:Template:PD-US-not renewed would be applicable. If the Commons file is deleted then the Wikipedia file should be kept. We should keep the Wikipedia file until the Commons deletion request has been resolved. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I did a quick search for "Gorgo" and found PA0000142974 for the movie and RE0000393467 for its renewal. Assuming the poster image doesn't appear in the movie itself (which will have to be checked, the movie should be available for free on Tubi but I get a GDPR error), do you think MGM never bothered to register it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine the studios bothered renewing posters most of the time. They may or may not have registered it (you'd have to check the older printed volumes I think), but it appears they did not renew it. So, probably just change the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Thank you! Just for my understanding: if it had been renewed, the renewal should have showed up on cocatalog.loc.gov even if the original registration may or may not be listed? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, online should have any records from 1978 on. Authors could register at any time, including when filing the renewal. They had to wait 27 years to file a renewal though, so that would be online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2020 (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:AMH from front carpark2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file is attributed to mapio.net, however, this seems to be a search engine. The image appears on multiple sites attributed to "Art_Dulay" via a reverse Google Image search. It is unclear what the original source is, and the uploader neither claims that it is their own image, so it should be assumed as not free. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 17:24, 7 December 2020 (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 Jewelry.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: Blatant WP:NFG violation -FASTILY 00:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magic Jewelry Title Screen.png was uploaded as fair use without a rationale and placed in the infobox for identification, Salavat has added a rationale, however there now exists File:Magic Jewelry Title Copyright Removed.png, File:Magic Jewelry.png and File:Magic Jewelry 2.png being used for decorative purposes in a gallery violating WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. File:Magic Jewelry 2.png and File:Magic Jewelry Title Copyright Removed.png have no rationale and are tagged as such and will be deleted when it expires. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, File:Magic Jewelry.png has a rationale, which is why I've nominated it for deletion. I don't believe there needs to be more than one image on the article, unless there's sourced commentary which a fair use image would support. I don't mind which image is used in the infobox, but I think the rest should be deleted. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, until fairly recently, the image I uploaded, File:Magic Jewelry.png, used to be the only image used on the article, replacing the lower quality watermarked image that was used before it, and it was in the infobox. At some point, someone moved it from the infobox to the gameplay section, to be consistent with other video game articles, and then a few days later, for unknown reasons, someone else added 2 other images to the article, and moved my image to the gallery. I would argue that, to be consistent with other retro game articles, there should be at least 1 gameplay image in the article, and currently my image is the only gameplay image there. It would also seem as though the reason a gameplay image was originally used in the infobox (even before I uploaded my replacement) is because normally boxart would go there, but Magic Jewelry lacks an official boxart. I don't know what solution to the issue of not having a boxart could be made, but regardless, I would implore you not to remove my image, and that it shouldn't be in a gallery, but in the gameplay section, where it was until just a few days ago, as this is in line with other articles covering retro games. Alex the weeb (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Magic Jewelry Title Copyright Removed.png because it is useless, keep File:Magic Jewelry.png as it succeeds WP:NFCC#8. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 00:46, 8 December 2020 (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.