Wikipedia:Files for discussion
Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here[edit]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
[edit]In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
[edit]Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
[edit]The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
- File:Yvonne and James II, 2021, Jordan Casteel at Met 2022.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 19h00s (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This painting is not discussed in the article it illustrates (except a mention in a bullet-pointed list). Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The entire section is discussing her oeuvre, and the image illustrates several features described there (the varying skin tones, the pose and direct gaze, the palette). I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 to say that because the section has a critical analysis her work as a whole, an image of one of her works wouldn't significantly increase readers' understanding. hinnk (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The claimed justification on the file is “To support encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article.” But this work is not discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- To wit, it seems a lot like OR for you to claim this work represents her style when no cited sources are saying that. What if experts think it’s atypical for her oeuvre? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Selective quoting like that doesn't help anyone. The full statement says, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Key example of the artist's figurative paintings of Black families, photographs, and communities, for critical analysis of the artist's style", which seems like a perfectly valid justification. If a different painting is more typical of her work, then replace it with that instead of proposing this very strained interpretation of the non-free content criteria. hinnk (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I quoted the portion that was untrue, and it is. Further, my point is not that either of us as individuals should decide what’s representative, but that we would need reliably sourced material discussing its relevance. As is required by our upload form on which the uploaded would have selected, “This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article.” It’s just not. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know it's my upload so I'm probably not supposed to weigh in, but I would note that there are quite a few notable examples of NFC that don't have a direct, textual reference to the work in question.
- One of the broader problems here is that much of the scholarship that would establish individual paintings/works of art as typical of an artist's style are created by the museums/institutions that own said work. I've run into many editors who seem to believe that anything produced by a museum about a work owned by that museum is a non-objective source, and can't be used on Wikipedia. So, in the eyes of some editors, to establish that this painting is indicative of Casteel's style - which the Met explicitly says in their listing for the work - we would need a second, completely separate source. In the past I've tried going that route - adding specific references sourced via a museum - and have had the contributions immediately reverted by other editors because the source is "too close to the subject." I could rant for days about the ways museums work and the ethics of arts scholarship, but a lot of editors take an extremely hard-line approach (if a museum owns something, anything they write about that object is non-usable), which can make it very difficult to add visual elements to artist bios, arguably the most important element when trying to learn about an artist. So I've often just added images that I know to be typical of an artist's style - information gleaned from the museums that own the works - without going down the textual reference route to avoid any editing conflicts. May not be the best approach, but it's been generally accepted so far.
- But obviously I defer to the group on this. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. 19h00s (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you couldn’t find a single independent source discussing the image, then to me it’s quite definitive that the painting isn’t and won’t be discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- (But you’re certainly welcome to weigh in!) Innisfree987 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you couldn’t find a single independent source discussing the image, then to me it’s quite definitive that the painting isn’t and won’t be discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't find WP:OR to be applicable in that way, and I would only evaluate against the WP:NFCC, not the file upload wizard. I don't think Innisfree987 and I are presenting new arguments at this point, so I'll leave it there. hinnk (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I quoted the portion that was untrue, and it is. Further, my point is not that either of us as individuals should decide what’s representative, but that we would need reliably sourced material discussing its relevance. As is required by our upload form on which the uploaded would have selected, “This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article.” It’s just not. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Selective quoting like that doesn't help anyone. The full statement says, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Key example of the artist's figurative paintings of Black families, photographs, and communities, for critical analysis of the artist's style", which seems like a perfectly valid justification. If a different painting is more typical of her work, then replace it with that instead of proposing this very strained interpretation of the non-free content criteria. hinnk (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- To wit, it seems a lot like OR for you to claim this work represents her style when no cited sources are saying that. What if experts think it’s atypical for her oeuvre? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The claimed justification on the file is “To support encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article.” But this work is not discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 09:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
[edit]Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
August 10
[edit]- File:2027 CWC Fanmade Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vestrian24Bio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This image, and its previous revision is a fan made logo. Its use as a logo is misleading, bordering on a hoax. Whpq (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Export to Commons:It's not used as a logo at all; its a free media with its source file already available in the Wikimedia Commons. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- Speedy Delete F8: File now available in Commons as c:File:2027 CWC Fanmade Logo.png. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- F8 probably does not apply, since I've nominated it for deletion on Commons too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete F8: File now available in Commons as c:File:2027 CWC Fanmade Logo.png. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and remove the Commons file from any pages in the article, template, and category namespaces if this can't verified as the official logo of the event. FFD is not only a place to discuss the copyright status of a file; it's also where the use of the file can be discused. As pointed out above by Whpq, if this isn't the official logo of the event (as approved by the event's organizing committee), then it shouldn't really be being used on any Wikipedia pages (current use is eleven pages) per WP:IMAGEOR. I tried searching for this online, but couldn't find it being used anywhere; so, a link to an official website or a story about the event on a reputable news wesbite showing this logo being associated with the event will go along way in helping to sprt this out; otherwise, this file should be deleted and the Commons file shouldn't be used in any English Wikipedia articles. I've added a {{Please see}} template about this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket: perhaps the members of that WikiProject can help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The official logo won't be available until 2026-end at least; This image was designed by a Wikipedia editor to be used in English Wikipedia to identify related topics until the official logo is released. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Youmaking up the logo is exactly why it should be deleted, as it has no encyclopedic value as it has no proper relevance to the event. It would be a mockery to the encyclopedia to use a made up logo for the sake of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)- Just for the record, I didn't create/design the logo; it was another editor who initially uploaded it to Commons. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- So where is the attribution to this other editor? Spike 'em (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I gave the link to the original file - c:File:2027 WC Fanmade Logo.png (Which has been deleted now).
- Original uploader: User:Sayantanp10 (Commons page) Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The originally uploaded file was File:2027 WC Fanmade Logo.png as pointed out above, and it was deleted as a copyvio. According to the Commons admin who deleted that file, the older overwritten version of the file uploaded by Vestrian24Bio is the same as the file that was deleted. For this reason, the older revision of Vestrian24Bio's file has now been hidden by that Commons admin. According to the log for the deleted file, other user Vestrian24Bio is referring to, also as pointed out a above, is c:User:Sayantanp10, who also uploaded File:T20 World Cup 2026 Fanmade Logo.png.There is a potential problem with the Commons file that can't really be resolved here. Although Commons does allow c:COM:FANART to be uploaded, it has have some "educational value" for it to be with c:COM:SCOPE per c:COM:EDUSE. Whether the Commons file uploaded by Vestrian24Bio is within Commons scope probably needs to be sorted out per c:COM:DR; however, even if the Commons ultimately keeps the file, Wikipedia isn't required to use it per WP:IMAGEOR and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. That is something that can be resolved here. Using fanart in lieu of an official logo of a major international sporting event does seem (at least to me) as something that could bring the project into disrepute and is something that should be avoided. There's nothing wrong with waiting for the official logo to be released, and there's zero encyclopedic value in using the fanart is any article as a "placeholder" until then; so, even if the local file is deleted and the Commons file kept, the Commons file shouldn't be used in any pages associated with the event -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- So where is the attribution to this other editor? Spike 'em (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I didn't create/design the logo; it was another editor who initially uploaded it to Commons. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The official logo won't be available until 2026-end at least; This image was designed by a Wikipedia editor to be used in English Wikipedia to identify related topics until the official logo is released. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've struck the implication from my first comment that Vestrian24Bio created it. Though all my comments about it being unemcyclopedic still stand. And it has now been deleted from Commons, so issue is simplified to whether we want to keep it here or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to use made up logos just because the official one doesn't exist yet. The only sensible logo to use for 2027 CWC articles is the official one when that is released, until that time, having no logo is perfectly fine but having a made up logo is not. This logo is not encyclopedic in any way shape or form and has no encyclopedic value on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. We are not a fansite and any additions like this are unencyclopedic. AA (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations
[edit]August 11
[edit]- File:Colonel Simón Ocampo Tecson1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The prose likely dates to the 2000s, the same time as the plaques that were deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 31. The Tagalog author is not certainly dead for more than 70 years (English Wikipedia follows U.S. rules, not Philippine rules, so 70 years and not 50 years) for this Tagalog prose to be in public domain. As there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, the image should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. If the Tagalog prose author is unknown, then this image remains unfree until 95 years after the prose publication or 120 years after the prose creation, whichever is shorter. English Wikipedia is bound to comply more-restrictive U.S. copyright rules in terms of public domain calculation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Colonel Simón Tecson y Ocampo (1861 - 1903) is one of Siege of Baler's Commanders and leaders (in Bulacan Heroes Park (reliefs with historical markers) at Bulacan Provincial Capitol Compound monuments of Malolos Historic Town Center June 13, 2024);
- Fact check: NHCP marker installed - among the historic houses in San Miguel, the Tecson Mansion is the only one that has a historical marker. Simon Tecson historical marker installed in the front of his Simon Tecson Ancestral House in San Miguel, Bulacan is included in the List of markers in Luzon
- Oops - but previous deletions anchored on "this, Derivative of a possibly-copyrighted prose. BULACAN History and Heritage" The FB post by Bulacan province is copied from the NCHP, hence, it is incredible that Bulacan prose is a fact, since many historians like Zaide were later on debunked for plagiarism hence, wrong versions Tecson markervery sincerely yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC).
- @Valenzuela400 the deletion question is not based on if the written material on the plaque is fact or fake. The question is when it was made or first published? It is unlikely that the author of the text is dead for more than 70 years (U.S. terms, not lenient 50-year Philippine term). There is also no proof that the author was a regular government employee (a documentary proof from you proving that he/she was a regular [not contractual] government employee is required so that it can be kept here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fact check: NHCP marker installed - among the historic houses in San Miguel, the Tecson Mansion is the only one that has a historical marker. Simon Tecson historical marker installed in the front of his Simon Tecson Ancestral House in San Miguel, Bulacan is included in the List of markers in Luzon
- File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GreekParadise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 4. エルコボラ (話す) 07:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Criterion 4 says "A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." The area shown on the map is a part of the Golan Heights whose sovereignty is disputed between Lebanon and Israel. This controversy is described in the article and maps are a major part of the controversy. Also, this is only a very small part of the source map. So I fall on the side of allowing it. Zerotalk 11:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a free version available on Commons? エルコボラ (話す) 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Because of the date (1966), I don't think a free version is possible without a license from the author (a mapping agency of the Lebanese government). Zerotalk 13:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was done by a branch of a government that ceased to exist more than fifty years ago.GreekParadise (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The copyright of government publications is held by the government itself, including successor governments, not by individual departments. At least, that is how it works in most countries but I can't swear it is like that in Lebanon. So in this case we would need a license from the branch of the Lebanese government empowered to grant such licenses. Zerotalk 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was done by a branch of a government that ceased to exist more than fifty years ago.GreekParadise (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Because of the date (1966), I don't think a free version is possible without a license from the author (a mapping agency of the Lebanese government). Zerotalk 13:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a free version available on Commons? エルコボラ (話す) 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Ivana Miličević.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SunnyScion (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This picture has two issues. There is no CC license at the source. Also, this does not pass WP:NFCCP criteria #1 as this is a photo of Ivana Miličević, a living person. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
August 12
[edit]- File:Palmeiras Flag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dryazan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is just the club logo (which already exists at File:Palmeiras logo.svg on a green background. It adds nothing to the encyclopaedia. I'm sure Palmeiras flags come in many different designs too, there is nothing special about this design. – PeeJay 09:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:EricPohlmann.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unused file -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Nutshell-talk.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David Levy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Redundant to higher-quality File:Walnut.png; there is no need to have a version which is a lower-quality version for use on talk pages. Delete this local file and create a redirect on Commons from c:File:Nutshell-talk.png to File:Walnut.png. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
August 13
[edit]- File:Joseuribe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SportsAddicted (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't know if Files for discussion is the appropriate place to nominate a file for deletion but here goes. There are several free alternatives to this image, including this one which is on the Commons. There are several others that were published without copyright notice and freely available online: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Dakar 2026 Summer Youth Olympic Games.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dinnerbrone (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Should we move logos of upcoming and recent Youth Olympic Games from 2024 onwards to Commons? They are all PD-ineligible. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Leave It All to Me.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Il223334234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The "full" TV version (but not the extended version) of "Leave It All to Me" has been irrevocably released by Paramount Global under CC-BY 3.0; it is available here: File:ICarly 2021 theme song.wav. I don't think this 24-second clip version serves any purpose. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- See also: Commons village pump discussion confirming that the NickRewind CC-BY 3.0 license applies to the song. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:2022 Thai League 2 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gunkiet (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFC#UUI14 since 2021–22 Thai League 2 uses the same logo. Jonteemil (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:2023 Thai League 1 logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gunkiet (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFC#UUI14 since 2022–23 Thai League 1 is using the same logo. Jonteemil (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
August 14
[edit]- File:Topps 1993 refractor card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fma12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This uses the Template:Non-free comic which is not applicable in that it is a trading card, not a comic book. It's importantly different from other uses of that template in that it is a scan of the entire product, whereas a scan of a "single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of a comic book" is just a small portion of a larger work. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, so I could not find any affordable license tag for a trading card. Tell me which would be the most appropriate tag for that, and I'll replace it. Fma12 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Denniscabrams: I think that {{Non-free promotional}} could be an affordable template for the card so there is no tags for trading sports cards, memorabilia, or similar collectors items in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. If someone wants to leave his opinion / feedback, go ahead. Fma12 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Metro-epektaseis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfera1022 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:2025 World Aquatics Championships official logo.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfera1022 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Claim of copyright holder and uploader unconfirmed yet. By default, should be non-free with rationale if uncontested. George Ho (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-free. Well the source appears to be correct - the logo does appear on the website for the competition but the legal terms section of the website makes it clear that the claim of the copyright being released is just not believable. No comment on whether it meets the NFCC. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
August 15
[edit]- File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a German image from 1905, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What basis do you have to believe this image was published anonymously? The first page in the source seems to imply that Weyer produced them, and it clearly states that he retained all rights. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- First, you did not mark the correct author of the file when uploading it, but thought that the file was uncertain. In addition, since the image was published in Germany, German copyright law stipulates that works enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense; I said the page implies that Weyer drew the sketches, but it's not clear.
- Yes, indeed; when did Weyer die? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- So is the issue just one of which template to use? So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer drew the sketch (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany). Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:SMS Niobe in harbor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a German image from 1902, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What basis do you have to believe that this was published anonymously? The fact that you don't know now who took the photo does not mean that it was published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer took the photo (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany); or is there an actual attribution to another named photographer? Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any indication this image is by Weyer; however, it should certainly be covered by {{PD-old-assumed}}, meaning it could be transferred to Commons in any case. Felix QW (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:6NEWS HD LOGO.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sethkeever (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. However, this particular logo may or may not meet the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:RTV6 News.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mega-buses (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
August 16
[edit]- File:Team USA ceremony uniforms at the 2024 Summer Olympics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevencocoboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I would say that a free equivalent can be produced (NFCC1) and is there a need to have a fair use file when there is an external link to show the similar subject? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 00:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2020 GFL win.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnthonyNVLe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file was created for someone's personal alternate history project. The uploader also uploaded several similar files: File:2004 Wellstone win (alt history).svg, File:1998 Alternate GFL win (ME).svg, File:2016 Huntsman re-election win.svg, File:Huntsman Unity GOP and DEM win.svg, File:Green-Farmer-Labor Party election symbol.png, File:Green-Farmer-Labor Party Logo.png, File:2008 Nader Alternate Win.svg, File:2004 Nader Alternate election win.svg, File:GFL Brown Alternate Re-election 2000.svg and File:Tulsi win 2020.svg. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Galaxy nexus logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robber93 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This logo is most likely in the public domain in the United States because the design is too simple to be protected by copyright, but it is likely to be protected by copyright in the PRC, the country of origin. It is recommended to replace the original fair use mark with template {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:John Sebastian-Welcome-1976.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SusanLesch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Use of sample in TV series article and the singer-songwriter one most likely not compliant with 'contextual significance' criterion. Song successful, but uncertain whether a sample is necessary for contextual significance, especially in the theme song one. Contextual significance ≠ portion/song identity. George Ho (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am not attached to this file, but I doubt that the tone of the TV show can be expressed without this theme song. I believe the sample meets the requirements 1, 2, 3: No free equivalent, Respect for commercial opportunities, Minimal usage. I don't think we have a way to include video so the theme is minimally prototypical of the show. I support removing it from any other uses including John Sebastian. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sample removed from the singer-songwriter article just now. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
August 17
[edit]Footer
[edit]Today is August 17 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 17 – (new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===August 17===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.