Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

September 20

Daniel Padilla videography screenshots

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: Deleted -FASTILY 05:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of non-free video screenshots in Daniel Padilla videography. Non-free images used to illustrate individual entires in list articles are almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS unless there is a really strong contextual reason for doing so to meet WP:NFCC#8. Like album covers, etc., these non-free images could possibly justified if they were used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the video itself, but a much stronger justification is need for use in a videography/list article such as this as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Moreover, there are two freely licensed images of Padilla being used for general identification purposes, so a non-free cannot be used for that reason per WP:FREER. Suggest delete for all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (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.

Murray Football League team jumpers

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 first, third and fourth file and remove second from Murray Football League. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of team jumpers being used in a decorative manner in Murray Football League. Unless it's possoble that some of these might be considered public domain, this type of use fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Using non-free images like this in tables is not really allowed per WP:NFTABLES because there is no sourced critical commentary or other discussion of the jummpers at all to provide the context required by NFCC#8. While it might be possible to justify the non-free use of such a file in a stand-alone article about the individual teams themselves, sourced discussion about the jumper/teams colors would need to be provided before these images can be moved to their team articles in my opinion.

Suggest delete for "File:Barooga Hawks Football Jumper.png", "File:Rumbalara Football Club Team Jumper.png" and "Mulwala Lions Football Team Jumper.png" unless somebody can figure out a way to properly incorporate them into the individual team articles in a manner that satisfies WP:NFCCP. Suggest remove for "File:Moama Football Club Team Jumper.gif" from the "Murray Football League" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete for "File:Barooga Hawks Football Jumper.png", "File:Rumbalara Football Club Team Jumper.png" and "Mulwala Lions Football Team Jumper.png"; remove for "File:Moama Football Club Team Jumper.gif" from the "Murray Football League". Agree with basically everything that has been said in the original nomination. Although I do see a small amount of merit of including guernseys in league articles, these guernsey files can be uploaded with a much more simple style (i.e. just team colours) to meet either {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and portray the same meaning in Murray Football League. Currently they aren't simple enough to be freely licenced and as such fail NFCC#8. Flickerd (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2017 (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.

Back to the Future: Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack

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 bannered one. Going by the last provided argument as it's uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both images have the same artwork for the Back to the Future soundtrack, yet one of them has the "Huey Lewis and the News" circle banner. Now that the soundtrack is notable per consensus at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal, I think we should keep one artwork and delete the other; I vote to keep the circle banner (if not sticker) version and delete the banner-less/sticker-less one because the former was used for initial and some subsequent releases. Of course, the banner-less version has perfection, but I can still go for the banner version. --George Ho (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that any differences between the two files other than the circle banner are negligible, I actually think the one without the banner should probably be kept. The circle label certainly isn't needed for the reader's understanding when a single sentence with links/citations to the article about "Power of Love" reaching #1 can be added to the article, so that doesn't seem to be a good reason for choosing that cover over the non-labled one. There is also certainly no need to include both per WP:NFCC#3a, unless the circle label version was itself specifically the subject of sourced commentary in reliable sources at the time for some reason. The album was released at the beginning of July 1985 and the song did not hit #1 until late August 1985[1], so it seems that the cover without the banner had to come first, unless somebody at the record company was incredibly lucky or psychic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (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:Bart Cassiman and Juan Muñoz.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan NG 1989 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.

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:James Bond cover.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 third image, punt the other to OTRS. Seems like there is clear indication that the third image isn't licensed, whereas the first and second are still in flux. ww2censor's comments need to be accounted for in any case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(OTRS agent): These images were primarily created by Buckingham Covers, a stamp/memorabilia company, and contain reproductions of UK stamps. An OTRS ticket 2017050510006926 was received from the creators which released the images into the public domain. However, the UK stamps within the images are copyrighted property of Royal Mail, who governs the conditions of their use in a manner that permits use for specific purposes (though strictly non-commercial) and prohibits derivatives. So even though the attempted release into the public domain was confirmed by OTRS, the (a) size of the reproduction and the (b) significance of the copyrighted material as almost main subjects of the works themselves, means that the images cannot be properly considered to be public domain works. The authors are not legally able to release the Royal Mail components into the public domain, and the components present in the images have restrictions that are incompatible with our requirements for freely licensed media. seb26 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I first tagged these for speedy deletion it was on the basis that Royal Mail stamps are copyright for 50 years per crown copyright, so due to their prominence the image were a copyvio. It would have surprised me if Royal Mail really relinquished their rights to a stamp dealer to allow commercial and/or derivative use of their stamps. For these 3 images to be kept we really require an additional OTRS release from Royal Mail. Besides which there are some other issues with these 3 images: who was the photographer of the background image on the Bowie image and where is their release, and has the Hornby logo been released freely because it is likely non-free considering the low threshold of originality in UK. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a valid point about the Bowie imagery. A public domain release is the decision with the most significant legal consequence in comparison to all other copyright arrangements. It is highly unlikely that the record label for that album donated all exclusive rights to Royal Mail for that album cover, and that is exactly what would be required of Royal Mail if they were to properly designate their stamps as public domain. They most likely purchased a limited license to use the album on their stamps, key word there being limited, with no ability to relicense and donate the work entirely. However, the OTRS ticket as I mentioned above does *not* in its current state have any clear words from Royal Mail saying they *did* release anything into the public domain, only that Wikipedia was permitted to display them. Of course, that is not sufficient for our needs. For the record, I posted this ticket on the OTRS noticeboard a few days before nominating but I will try to get the attention of another OTRS agent to cross check its contents. seb26 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently waiting on a reworded permission from Royal Mail. If you're still not happy I will re-upload the images with the stamps not visible

Obriens86 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That will be a better solution. Royal Mail does not appear to be in a position to declare public domain for David Bowie album covers or James Bond comic book covers so whatever permission they send is not likely to be legally acceptable for us. seb26 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To wait for that "reworded permission"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:James Bond cover.jpg does not now appear to be a problem but there are issues with the other two. Who is the photographer of the background photo used in File:David Bowie Music Icons.jpg and where is the evidence this image has been released freely. For File:Hornby cover.jpg , who designed the train labels and where is the copyright release for those labels. Additionally, has Hornby released their logo into the public domain as UK copyright will still consider this to be above the threshold of originality due to the low level UK accepts. Maybe the logo is old enough to be in the public domain but that must be determined to keep this image. Without answers to the 2nd and 3rd image we really need more details otherwise they should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.Pull out of misery.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:14, 20 September 2017 (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:James-Treble.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 ⚡ 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues. Deleted on Commons and failed undeletion request there.

An aclaimed free file exists at commons:File:Designer James Treble.jpg, but it's being nominated for deletion for personality rights reasons. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (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:USCaratese.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This media is hosted locally under fair use, but I am only seeing simple textual elements, and the equivalent media at commonsc:File:Ultimo logo US Caratese.png was considered to simple for copyright protection to apply. I am querying why this local version is not replaceable with the commons hosted one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fall below TOO and would suggest deleting here in favour of Commons version. Commons however doesn't cover Italy in its Threshold of originality guide so perhaps relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly instead of deleting might be more appropriate. Salavat (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (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:LADbible-logo.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: Relicense local version to PD-USonly. Prudentiary US-only given the UK copyright business. What Commons does with its version is their business. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This media is currently locally hosted under fair use. I am only seeing textual elements, and the equivalent media at Commons c:File:LADbible-logo.jpg is under a free license (which is easily amended to pd-textlogo). I am therefore querying why this logo needs to be hosted locally under "fair-use". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly mis-labeled. However given it is a UK based business it might not be eligible for Commons. Maybe relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly and then challenge the Commons based file. Salavat (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (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:DocuSign logo new.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media is currently licensed under a non-free rationale, but the equivalent media at Commons c:File:Logo-DocuSign.png was considered too simple for copyright. I am therefore querying why the local copy apparently needs to be fair use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to pd-logo and delete local file in favour of Commons file. Salavat (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (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:One of our aircraft.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 Hut 8.5 20:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file issue - Our article on the film One of Our Aircraft Is Missing uses two non-free images: File:One of Our Aircraft poster.jpg, which appears to a poster from the theatrical release of the film in 1942, and this file, which is a modern DVD cover. The DVD artwork is presumably recent, but it may include period components. Does the use of two non-free images break the Minimal number of items criterion of WP:NFCCP? If so I suggest that we remove this DVD cover image.

This file has been nominated for deletion before, when the result of the discussion was 'No consensus'. However the earlier the discussion did not address the Minimal number of items criterion. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify "The DVD artwork is presumably recent ...", the artwork is actually the original poster that was used for advertising the film, and the main reason for its retention, and that rationale is clearly stated in the caption. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The use of this DVD cover with original poster art work does not meet WP:NFCC#8. There is no discussion about the poster in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The DVD cover fails WP:NFCC#3a since there is already a film poster used to identify the film in the infobox and fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the DVD cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (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:Town magazine covers 1960s.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: keep. Soft keep, if you will. Arguments in favour of keeping appear convincing (for now at least). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG since it's a gallery of multiple covers. Fails WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different cover in the infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#10c since the FUR isn't for the article in which the file is used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to single images from montage. FUR rationale fixed to point to the right article. The different covers were chosen to illustrate the publication history of the magazine which moved from hand drawn covers in the 50s to photographic in the 60s to sexualised imagery in the late 60s as discussed in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (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:Town magazine covers 1967.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: keep. Soft keep, if you will. Arguments in favour of keeping appear convincing (for now at least). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG since it's a gallery of multiple covers. Fails WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different cover in the infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#10c since the FUR isn't for the article in which the file is used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to single images from montage. FUR rationale fixed to point to the right article. The different covers were chosen to illustrate the publication history of the magazine which moved from hand drawn covers in the 50s to photographic in the 60s to sexualised imagery in the late 60s as discussed in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (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:CriminalMindsPromo.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: no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13's original rationale for using {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}: "Not used in the infobox, so the purpose of use is invalid." I discussed the request at Talk:Criminal Minds#File:CriminalMindsPromo.jpg with him, declined the speedy deletion request per discussion, and then am taking the image to this venue instead. I will say keep this image because it helps readers understand the whole show, including one part of the show: the characters of the show. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this serves a purpose in context within the text that's significantly different from File:Criminal Minds at Paley.jpg. The caption of the image names the cast members and is used to depict the cast, not their characters. Further, they're not in character in this picture; they're just wearing FBI vests. It's a simple cast photo, and there are free alternatives to that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (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:SavannahSquares.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: relisted on 2017 October 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SavannahSquares.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

Images on Stitch's Great Escape!

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 only the second image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if photography is allowed on this ride? (Stitch's Great Escape!?) If so, these images fail WP:NFCC#1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: In case there is an absence of participation here, consider me neutral on whether or not these images should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a relatively old photo of the ride's warning sign (or an earlier version thereof), which does not mention anything about photography. I should note that the page where I found the photo has only one photo of the show theater itself, presumably before the ride actually starts as it shows empty seats, so it could be assumed that it's not during the show proper. (Considering that there are moments of total darkness so the Stitch Audio-Animatronic can be moved in and out of the theater via elevator platform for his "escape", it's logical that flash photography wouldn't be allowed to preserve the illusion.) Either way, I don't exactly know for sure. –WPA (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the relevancy of what the ride allows, but these photos would need to be fair use (if they need depiction at all, based on the text) as the focal point of the photo—the costume—is copyrighted czar 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment: In that case, it would probably be better to keep File:Stitch's Great Escape!.jpg over the other since the costume does not appear as focused in that photo. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:20, 20 September 2017 (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:Navifon Screenshot.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 F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Application may be free, but the image shown contains a (C) NAVTEQ message at the bottom.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 20 September 2017 (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:Ralink RT2500 chipset 802.11 54Mbps adapter.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 ⚡ 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License conflict, I fail to see how this is GPL as it's not source code or a screenshot. Maybe the uploader meant GFDL, and mis-tagged? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 20 September 2017 (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:Ganjamarsh.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: relisted on 2017 October 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:One Piece, Volume 1.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: relisted on 2017 October 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:One Piece, Volume 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Lady R Churchill.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: Keep Nthep (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned "keep local" file. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Orphaned keep local file" is not grounds for deletion. Editors such as Giano often create and/or upload images well in advance of their use in articles. We should not be dictating to our content creators timescales for their work, nor insisting that they must subscribe to watchlisting their images on another site (Commons) to keep track of them. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST explicitly says we do not keep materials not used in encyclopedia or project-space articles indefinitely, RexxS. That image has been floating around the File namespace since 2005, which is part of the reason I nominated it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the file was being used, but was removed? If it was being used and the removal was fairly recent, it could be that it was removed in error. If the file was being used, but removed quite some time ago and still was not re-added somewhere else, then the case for keeping an unused file locally is not as strong. If there's no intent to use the file locally, then there's no reason to store it locally, If the uploader is truely concerned about having their files somehow deleted/damaged by Commons (as quite a few editors seem to be), they can keep their own copy somewhere on their own computer, can't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by me (Marchjuly) to add the word "not". Doing so affects the meaning of the post, but this what I intended to write. Sorry, for any confusion caused. -- 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Actually, BU Rob13 WP:NOTWEBHOST explicitly says "File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." So your assertion is complete and utter bollocks. There is no deadline for editors to make use of uploaded images. Your only recourse to WEBHOST is to argue that a file is not used (or will not be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages. Are you seriously trying to tell us that this image of Lady Randolph Churchill - the mother of Winston Churchill - was not intended by Giano to be used in a article? Give us a break. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Intent has nothing to do with NOTWEBHOST. It's whether we're ever going to get action. NOTWEBHOST makes clear that the timeline is not indefinite, so what is the definite timeline you recommend? Do you mean to say it's reasonable to host an image serving no encyclopedic purpose for over a decade? If this FfD resulted in the image being used in an article, then it's had a positive impact, and I'm more than happy with that outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Of course intent has everything to do with WEBHOST. The words "files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles" speak precisely to intent. Do you have difficulty understanding English? Giano uploaded the file not to have Wikipedia host a nice picture, but to have it available to use in an article, of course. Don't you realise you're impugning one of our finest content contributors? No, you don't get to tell him how long we may have to wait for it to be used: as long as there is intent or opportunity to profitably use the image, it doesn't matter if we wait two decades - what's your rush? What do you think is the point of WEBHOST? A bureaucratic mechanism to justify throwing out encyclopedic material after a "best-by date"? or a sensible policy that limits images to those of potential encyclopedic content? The cornerstone of WEBHOST is usability, not time since upload, and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can disengage from these unwarranted deletion nominations. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Will be used" and "is intended to be used" have quite different meanings, but I'm done talking to you if you're going to resort to personal attacks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you can't see that when Giano uploads a file so that it will be used in an article, he intends it to be used in an article? If those sort of semantics are the only defence you've got for your disgraceful nomination, it's a good job you've decided to shut up. Law of holes certainly applies. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On one hand, we do have WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but on the other hand special consideration does (did?) seem to be given to editors (expecially established editors with a history of uploading image files) who request that a local copy be kept on Wikipedia for various reasons. I say "did?" because there used to be specific wording in WP:MTC#What not to transfer which directly touched on that which has been removed from the current version of the page with this edit by Fastily. The only thing I found on the page's talk page was Wikipedia talk:Moving files to Commons/Archive 1#Commons: When? Why?, but that dates back to 2005. Maybe this has been discussed more recently, but on another page? Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why that particular a paragraph was removed so perhaps Fastily can clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"not exactly sure why that particular a paragraph was removed": a) in an effort to simplify/make the MTC page easier to understand and because b) like you said, it's a consideration practiced by some, and by no means a formal guideline/policy. I think FfD is absolutely the proper venue for this sort of discussion. -FASTILY 01:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. FWIW, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just remember that section from a previous FFD (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 20#Keep local vs. Commons) and found it no longer there when I went to check. I also think FFD is fine for discussing this particular file. I was just wondering if there was another page where removing the "keep local" paragraph might have been discussed besides the MTC talk page. Anyway, if anyone wants to re-add the paragraph to WP:MTC , they should discuss it on the talk page.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a previous FFD resulted in no consensus due to disagreement over the interpretation of {{keep local}}. Deryck C. 11:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now used at Lady Randolph Churchill. Don't know why it wasn't before - a useful balance to all the pics of her at the height of her beauty. Johnbod (User talk:Johnbod) 14:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnbod and D4iNa4: It's because a higher-resolution version of it exists at File:Jennie Churchill.jpg, imported from the German Wikipedia sometime later than the upload of this file. I propose that we should migrate to Commons and link as an alternative to the higher-resolution version. Deryck C. 10:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says that this file is in the public domain in the United States by virtue of having been published before 1923. When was this first published? Was the photo created for the purpose of being published, or was it created as a family photo which wasn't published until a lot later? The source URL only mentions a publication of unknown age: Kings, Court and Society: Recollection of a Veteran. Elsewhere on the page, it says that the photo was 'acquired' in 1989. Was it published before that? If not, then the United States copyright runs for 120 years from creation (or until the end of 2047 if the first publication was between 1989 and 2002). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems very unlikely that the photo was taken "as a family photo which wasn't published until a lot later" as the companion photograph taken at the same sitting was published in 1900 by The Sketch. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (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:Mwasiti Almas.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 F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional photos are copyright of the photographer. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:20, 20 September 2017 (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:Tom Stevenson.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 ⚡ 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to doubt - a reverse image search didn't match anything. It's linked from a draft BLP so the author probably knows the subject. But the article is declined, so if the draft gets abandoned we can delete this as orphan. Deryck C. 11:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image has EXIF data with the copyright and copyright holder fields set to "Andy Lane". The uploader's user name gives no hint that they are this person. OTRS confirmation would be needed. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (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:Namboothiri Vidyalayam Upper Primary School.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 ⚡ 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder. However, compare to the image in this page. The web page image takes in a slightly larger area. The uploaded image has had the colour changed and one can see the blur in areas of the image where the www.chattuvatom.com watermarking has been removed as well as editing artifacts from the use of a cloing tool to remove the scooter from the image. Whpq (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EXIF data indicates Photoshop was used which could explain the apparent clean up. The question then is whether we should treat this as a blatant copyright violation or something lacking permission. If it's an obvious copyvio, the file probably should be tagged per WP:F9 instead. If it's possible that the uploader might be the copyright holder, then maybe tag it with {{npd}} and give them five days (instead of a 7-day FFD) discussion to verify. The image can be seen previously published online prior to it's upload so maybe using c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? as a guide could work here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed this instead of using F9 because I didn't feel that the copyright violation fell into blatant or clearcut. -- Whpq (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2017 (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.