Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 16

May 16[edit]

File:Jeremy Malcolm, July 2013.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, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Minor attracted person” advocate indeffed from the wiki for… obvious resons. We don’t need this guy’s image sitting around. Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CHILDPROTECT. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not a webhost or social media site, esp. for a person of this character. Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should probably wait for the result of the appeal against the block before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.168.246 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal failed Dronebogus (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's appealed again but I'd put money on his losing talk page access after this one. Still, you might as well wait for the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.168.246 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the appeal's been declined again with talk page access left intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.168.246 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey Dronebogus (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. While I understand the arguments above, he's certainly notable enough for a Wikidata item, and having a freely licensed image would be helpful in creating that item. He might even be notable for a Wikipedia article, and we should not delete freely licensed material that would serve an educational purpose merely out of a desire to remove an image on a user page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe it should be moved to Commons. The uploader appears to be the subject of the photo, which does not appear to be a selfie. We'll need evidence of permission from the actual photographer. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons per RTH. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant

If you do that I’m just nominating it as a copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I would upload them. (Personal attack removed) Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of for god’s sake, keep your personal attacks to yourself or I’m reporting you. Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I agree that those drawings sucked, but golly gee willikers, this seems like it is not relevant to a different conversation at a completely unrelated FfD on a separate website some several months afterwards. jp×g 10:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just going to put it out there that Hemiauchenia has a long, long track record of getting into fights with editors in good standing that are “resolved” but never learned from, and is now engaging in unprovoked cross-wiki WP:HOUNDing. Dronebogus (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Speaking of irrelevant stuff from the past that has nothing to do with this discussion, how about quitting while we're ahead? jp×g 07:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exif data indicates that the photograph is Copyright Jeremy Malcolm. He uploaded it to EnWiki under a CC0 license in high quality, so I have next to zero doubt about the photograph's freedom. If you want to nominate it as a copyvio without explaining why you think it is, I can't stop you, but that would be quite disruptive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If someone handed their camera to someone else and asked that person to take their picture, then the metadata would still indicate the former to be the author. However, I don't deny the possibility that the subject could have used a timer or remote trigger. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's very easy to take a self-portrait with a delayed action camera shutter, so that alone does not mean he didn't take the photo itself or that it's a copyright violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is the point of this photo? Delete it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that on 21 February 2014, the image File:JeremyMalcolm.jpg was deleted, per this discussion. Could an admin please check to see if the previously deleted image is essentially the same as this current one? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that it is not the same image. - Aoidh (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal still applies that they uploaded a similar image after one was already deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the deletion rationale for this image? jp×g 11:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope related issues aggravated by WP:CHILDPROTECT and WP:DENY Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Commons, en.wiki is not a general repository for images. While there are still images here which were uploaded before the creation of Commons, and should really be moved there, the current purpose of the image collection here is clearly to hold images that cannot be uploaded to Commons for various reasons, and which are pertinent to use in articles. The current image fulfills neither of those criteria, and is being used only on the user page of a (now blocked) editor to represent that person. It is extremely unlikely that it would ever be used in an article unless the subject somehow becomes Wiki-notable. It seems to me that it therefore out of scope for the current purpose of the en.wiki image collection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image has no logical use and would be out of scope for Commons as well, so no, don't move it there. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per WP:CHILDPROTECT. Patient Zero^talk 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:CHILDPROTECT and it does not seem to say anything about this situation: a completely normal photograph of some guy, who happens to be a Wikipedia user, who was blocked for advocacy of something we find repugnant. I struggle to see how this could be construed as posing harm to anyone, emotionally, legally or otherwise (note that he is fully clothed, wearing a tie, and the photograph is from the shoulders up). I think that it is a bad idea to come up with specious interpretations of policy to parallel-construct an argument for deleting something, when the actual reason we want to delete it is "IAR, because to hell with this". Accordingly, that is my rationale: delete per IAR, because to hell with this. jp×g 23:26, 22 May 2023 (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:Euclid insignia.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New image File:Euclid launch kit cover insignia.png is available, with CC-BY-SA-IGO license, fair use one no longer needed. Artem.G (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's now clearly replaceable with a free image. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2023 (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:Animated gun turret.gif[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, but a local image description page exists. If you are wanting the image deleted, please nominate it for deletion on Commons. If you are requesting deletion of the local image description page only, use {{db-nofile}} if possible; if that is not possible, list it at WP:MFD. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animated gun turret.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

seizure risk 173.73.0.102 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current Manual of Style says that any animation of more than 5 seconds should include control features for readers to stop the animation. And no animation should fire more than 3 flashes per second. The animation in question is a repeating gif of 7.7 seconds. 173.73.0.102 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations,_video,_and_audio_content

I've looked for a standard method to tag and address such animations, but I'm not seeing any. 173.73.0.102 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2023 (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:DoubleUp1970.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could apply {{PD-US-no-notice}} to the sculpture as Smithsonian records indicate it does not have any inscriptions. [1] Ixfd64 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I support relicensing. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2023 (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:20080228 Ellicott Square Building (7).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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think freedom of panorama would apply as the door is part of the architecture. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's various reasons this is likely okay. First, the building was completed in 1896, putting any artistic elements out of copyright unless they were installed in 1923 or later. Second, it's architecture, for which freedom of panorama applies. Third, the doors are a utilitarian object. I would recommend changing the license to the photographer's preference. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2023 (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.