Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4[edit]

File:Sirius Love Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Sirius XM Love. This appears to be a former logo of the organization which has been superseded by File:Sirius XM Love logo.svg. The non-free use rationale provided states the file is being used in the infobox at the top of the article which is not the case at all so WP:NFCC#10c is not satisfied. Tweaking the rationale is not really an option because the former logo is not itself the subject of any sourced sourced discussion within the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. Moreover, there's not really much difference between the two logos other than the additional text "XM" in the more recent version, so both are serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose according to WP:NFCC#3a, which means only one of the two is needed. Finally, since no sourcing information is provided for the file other than the boilerplate text added by the template when the uploader fails to add specific source information, it's currently hard to verify that both WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a are being satisfied. Suggest Remove from the article unless the above NFCC issues are appropriately resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am unable to notify the uploader of the file about this discussion because they have been blocked indefinitely and their user talk page is protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2016 (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.

Non-free screenshots of newscast opens[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free screenshots of newscast opens being used in the "News operation" or "Newscasts" subsections of TV station articles. None of these images are being used in the main infobox as the primary means of identification of the TV station in question and none of the screenshots themselves are the subject of any of sourced commentary within the subsection where they are being used so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. In addition, many of these simply show the same logo being used in the main infobox, so no new encyclopedic information is gained from seeing them per WP:NFCC#3a. Suggest Remove for all files from their articles, unless the non-free content issues can be resolved or if by chance some of these are too simple to be considered copyrightable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2016 (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:A Dustbin of Milligan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Spike Milligan#Books. File has a non-free use rationale, but the "Books" section is essentially an embedded list of books written by Milligan, with no critical discussion at all. Generally, non-free files are not allowed for single entries of such lists per WP:NFLISTS because such usage is considered decorative and using the cover art for a book in an article about its author is generally considered to only be acceptable and provide the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 when the cover art itself is either used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book, or is the subject of sourced commentary within the subsection of another article (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for reference). Suggest remove from "Spike Milligan" unless the NFCC#8 problems are sufficiently resolved. Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the original file uploader, I have no strong objections. It was some time ago that I uploaded the file (2009), and at the time, I aspired to create article about the book. I was in the midst of culling a very very large library - a project which took me 18 months and nearly sent me broke (but I did it) - so I never got around to it. I don't know if I still have the book even. I may do, but my circumstances have changed significantly, such that time is at a premium, and internet access intermittent, with the result that I seldom get to do any editing at all these days, let alone the commitment to see an article through. I'm a persistent little blighter though, so while I live and breathe, there is a fairly good chance I'll get back into Wikipedia, although as for Milligan, brilliant as he was, I must pass for now. I do have a Milligan 'project' to attend to, but that will entail contacting some people to get a longstanding issue sorted out, if there is the will among those capable of resolving the issue. Cheers Wotnow (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2016 (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:Seitya For Slagaocar.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coderzombie (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2016 (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:Zimmber logo.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 18#File:Zimmber logo.png. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this logo (just coloured letters) really copyrightable? I am not sure myself, does the overlap between letters count as "original"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As uploaded, I opted to employ caution. Particularly since the country of origin is probably India and c:C:TOO has nothing on Indian law. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India essentially seems to have copied an old British law and then made some amendments, so it's not unlikely that India uses the same originality criteria as the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around and it seems (assuming that I wasn't looking at outdated laws) to me that in India, copyright is applied on the basis of subject matter, not as a general standard like a TOO. Worth noting though that for enWikipedia purposes we only consider US copyright aspects as noted on Wikipedia:Image use policy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (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:CJRB 1220am logo.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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more like a case for PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 4 February 2016 (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:All India Boy Scouts Association.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in India. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Stefan2: and anyone else who may know. The source for this image is given as File:Boy Scouts Association in India.png, which is being claimed as {{PD-India}}. Could this file, assuming that the source file is correctly licensed, also be considered PD if it is a derivative of a PD file or does it still need to be non-free? For reference, the version being discussed here can be found at boyscoutsindia.org and according to this it's possible that the logo is at least as old as 1951, but maybe even older. Some of the pictures on the organization's official website seem quite old (but that could just be the quality of the uploads), and it looks like the logo can be seen on flags and banners in some of the photo galleries ([1], [2], [3]) . Could any of the above be used to help date the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sent to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 5#File:Boy Scouts Association in India.png since we have no known year of first publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2016 (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:Eclaireurs Neutres de Côte d'Ivoire.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Scouting and Guiding in Ivory Coast. This is the logo of an organisation, but the article is not an article about an organisation. The organisation's logo should only be used in the article about the organisation, not in other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (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:Dr Kumar Vishwas Singapore 2014.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived versions of the image subject's (copyrighted) personal website indicate that the image was published by him at worst within days of being uploaded here. Eg: here and here. There are no earlier archived versions of the site.

I realise that the subject may perhaps have grabbed it from Wikipedia without attribution but I'm a little suspicious because of the sheer number of uploads we see for Indian subjects where the claim of "own work" is proven to be incorrect.

I'm not around much at the moment. If I have nominated this in wrong place then feel free to fix my mistake. Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, such things (questioning the freeness of an image) go on WP:PUF but this isn't a stringently enforced policy, I believe.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 4 February 2016 (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:Stanley.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified subject, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2016 (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.

Files in Laugh track[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 all from laugh track; keep File:Fozzierowlf.jpg in The Muppet Show, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these files blatantly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Laugh track. The one file that is not as clearly a WP:NFCC#8 violation as the others, File:Cdouglass LT.jpg, fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is not critical discussion present which requires or is enforced by an image of the device's "inventor"; this file is already present in its respective biographical article. (Technically, these files also fail WP:NFCC#10c, but these files have been restored on Laugh track several times now, so a consensus-enforced decision seems necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all from Laugh track. None of these illustrate any point made in the text (let alone critical sourced commentary); they are purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all from "Laugh Track" per nom. I don't see how the usage of any of these satisfy NFCC#8 or how a valid non-free use rationale could be written for such usage. Also, I suggest remove File:Fozzierowlf.jpg from Fozzie Bear and Rowlf the Dog per NFCC#8. This screenshot's usage seems decorative in both articles: it is not needed to identify either character or the subject of any sourced commentary in either article. Fozzie Bear is only mentioned a single time in "Rowlf the Dog" and that's in the caption for the image, and image is not needed at all for the reader to understand what is written about "Episode 218" in "Fozzie Bear" or that Fozzie and Rowlf occasionally appeared together on the show. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marchjuly on File:Fozzierowlf.jpg in Fozzie Bear and Rowlf the Dog; both should be removed per NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 5 February 2016 (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.