Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8

File:George-Shapiro-Friedman.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: Deleted on Commons, probably non-free. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file -FASTILY 07:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with george shapiro Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix FUR. Usage is for a deceased individual and no recreation can be made. If a free alternative exists, it should be used. Buffs (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 02:44, 8 June 2022 (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:Northern Group of Forces.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 -FASTILY 07:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file is an image showing Soviet officials inspecting soldiers from the Northern Group of Forces, in which the uploader only stated "to illustrate the military formation in question" as the sole rationale.

However, the file provided no information on the formation and organization of the troops (for example, an order of battle made from openly-available sources are more useful in conveying such information.), and otherwise, the file functions as a replaceable graphic illustration to the article. It's therefore doubted whether the file's inclusion will significantly increase readers' understanding on the article. The file violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It illustrates the concept of soldiers, which is a different type of message than an order of battle infographic would be. It can only be replaced by a free image showing the troops. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to Russian copyright laws, it is almost impossible to find free images of Soviet troops during this period. This image is practically not replaceable by a free image for that reason. Kges1901 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misunderstood "formation" as "formation and organization of the group", but what makes images of Soviet soldiers in Poland important to the understanding towards the article? The image only highlights soldiers from the Northern Group. Without proper enquiry one won't even know they are from the Northern Group garrisoned in Poland (rather than some random Soviet soldiers).

This case is somehow similar to a previous FFD request for the AP Tank Man image, in which it is decided that any other usage on June Fourth Incident-related pages (except the Tank Man page, which is central and irreplacable to the topic) are deleted for NFCC8. Both images are side-note illustrations to the topics described that are not central to the main topic (Tank Man in illustrating military actions and bloodshed in the June Fourth Incident, and this nominated image in illustrating the Northern Group in general). Unless this nominated image is itself a topic described in its article (clearly not this case), or used to illustrate a historical moment, then I consider the file did fail the requirement of NFCC8.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, RIA Novosti holds a considerable amount of Soviet-era images on Commons, so perhaps one may try to dive into their collections to find if there are suitable images?廣九直通車 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly encyclopedic and serves to illustrate the subject at hand. I see no valid reason for deletion listed here. Buffs (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refute As another related example, please consider this file deleted by a FFD request, which is an image depicting the moment when the Hong Kong Garrison entered Hong Kong. From the "keep" position, the image is certainly encyclopedic and illustrates the subject well, but is nevertheless agreed by the deleting administrator as an addition instead of a crucial part to the article it was used (so NFCC8 is violated).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the deleting admin made a mistake. Let's not repeat it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you explain why that deletion was a mistake? I'd like to know which policy/policies did the deleting administrator made.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 02:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The removal of this image does not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. As used, this doe not meet with WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2022 (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:The Badge of PLANS Shandong 17.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: Presumably non-free. No comment on compliance with the other NFCC, concerns regarding these may be raised in a separate FfD. -FASTILY 07:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image exists that serves as a more direct means of visual identification to the article subject. No need to use a non-free symbol. Wcam (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the licensing of File:The Badge of PLANS Liaoning 16.png correct? If so, this file would seemingly be free as well. ✗plicit 00:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 02:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That permission is wrong as well. Unlike US copyright law, Chinese copyright law only mandates that government edicts that have executive, legislative or judicial nature are in their local public domain. I've seen enough files blatantly misusing PD-PRC-exempt on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that both images are copyrighted. From a quick click around List of aircraft carriers, it seems that our general practice is to permit a non-free logo/patch/shield/whatever to be used, so keep. --B (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it isn't. From your given list, most of the ship badges are freely released, like the typical US federal government public domain for US carriers, or GJSTU for modern Japanese carriers. Some badges have wrongly applied permissions, like c:File:INS Viraat (R22) crest.jpg (Indian GODL doesn't allow free use of badges, crests, logos, etc.: c:Template:GODL-India). The only case where non-free ship badges are applied are the Royal Navy aircraft carriers. So I don't see such "general practice" you claimed.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't looking at ones from the US (which are obviously all PD). Most of the logos are at Commons and probably not legitimately PD (should be deleted at Commons and considered for upload here). But you can see some fair use ones for non-US ships - HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), HMS Ark Royal (R07), HMS Illustrious (R06), HMS Invincible (R05) --B (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your information. Perhaps it's best to consult WP:MCQ to generate more comments, but I'm neutral on the problem of whether fair-use images of coat of arms and badges of military units should be generally allowed at here.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2022 (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:Armenia- NATO cooperation.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Also, as noted below, there's no evidence that this is *actually* an official NATO photo. -FASTILY 06:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is for "Visual representing Armenia-NATO relations". The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the subject. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image coincides with text in the article discussing a high level meeting between the NATO SG and Armenian Ambassador. Serves as the primary (and only) visual highlighting the relationship between the two sides. Archives908 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason for keeping. It could simply be deleted under WP:CSD#F7 as a patently invalid fair use claim. Fair use does not mean "I'd like to use this professional photo to make my website look pretty and not pay money for it". In order for a news media photo to be valid "fair use", it generally needs to be a transformative use in some way. If you use a photo like The Falling Man for commentary ON THAT PHOTO ITSELF, it's valid fair use. If you use it merely because it is helpful to illustrate gravity, it is not fair use. --B (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what the actual source of this photo is? From Google image search, I also found it at [1]. But neither this, nor the source given on the upload page give an attribution for it. --B (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a typical press release type photo that NATO might have issued but a search DEC 1-31 2017 did not turn up this particular photo in their newsroom photo gallery. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (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:SanDiegoAirport Mosaiclegs.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United States. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2022 (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:Sam Smith 1967.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sam Smith 1967.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:03, 8 June 2022 (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:Smith and Federation of State Employees.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smith and Federation of State Employees.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:03, 8 June 2022 (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:Back 88.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Back 88.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:08, 8 June 2022 (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:Silver medal for Olympic water polo (1984).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Silver medal for Olympic water polo (1984).jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:09, 8 June 2022 (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.