Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18

File:Samsung Series 4 "50 PDP.JPG

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Series 4 "50 PDP.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:King's Speech soundtrack.jpg

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Affiche Internationale juane The King's Speech.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Article already has a non-free image in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argo soundtrack.jpg

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hobbit2-soundtrack special.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Two articles using this image already have other non-free images in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hobbit - The Battle of The Five Armies OST(Special Edition).jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Article already has many non-free images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blade Runner Spinners.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. Article already has a non-free image of Spinner along with a free image from Commons too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brideoffrankenstein.jpg

Free images present in Commons Category:Bride_of_Frankenstein_(trailer_screenshots). Either this is free too to move to Commons or unnecessary and should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry cavill man of steel.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. The image was not present at the time of FA review of the article and thus not discussed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (logo).svg

Should this file be converted from {{Non-free logo}} to {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}? It is currently being used in three articles, but only has a non-free use rationale for Technical University of Denmark. It's been tagged with {{di-missing some article links}} for Center for Electron Nanoscopy since February 2011, and it also does not have a rationale for DTU Space. If the licensing can be converted to public domain, then WP:NFCCP (No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) will not be applicable; on the other hand, if it needs to be non-free then valid rationales need to be added or the file needs to be removed per WP:NFCCE -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change licensing to "PD-USonly as image appears to be below the threshold of originality. Commons does touch on Denmark in their threshold of originality article but its not very clear regarding logos. Salavat (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towamencin Township school logos

Non-free files being used in Towamencin Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania#Education as well as North Penn School District and Christopher Dock Mennonite High School. The usage in the subsection of the township's article is clearly decorative and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. If, however, these are considered to be too simple for copyright protect and their licensing can be converted to {{PD-logo}}, then WP:NFCC#8 would not apply and they could remain as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both images appear to be below the threshold of originality. Suggest changing the licensing to "PD-logo". Both logos could qualify to be copied over to Commons following the change. Salavat (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:UWP example.png

Unlike what the license tag says, this image is not a screenshot of a Microsoft product. Rather, it is an image that Microsoft used, most likely under fair use provisions and the copyright belongs to someone else. Furthermore, this image can be plausibly replaced by a free image. WP:NFCC#1. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zapier Logo.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered ineligible at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local copy in favour of Commons copy. Image licensing changed to PD-logo and replaced on the article with the Commons version. Salavat (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Woo Pak Foo.jpg

Wikimedia Commons considered this to be an expired HK copyright. - Commons:File:Woo Pak-foo.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A crapsey.jpg

Duplicate at Commons is under a free license Commons:File:Adelaide Crapsey, portrait.jpg If correct based on the dates (pre 1922). Then this non-free image is replaceable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willpower insignia.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file Commons:File:Will.i.amS.png was ruled ineligible following a Deletion request. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local copy in favour of Commons copy. Image licensing changed to PD-logo and replaced on the article with the Commons version. Salavat (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Our favourite shop side 1.jpg

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:VA PEACE-WarLP back.jpeg

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:VUgandaGregCalL2.PNG

Unencyclopedic image, deleted from commons. Cordless Larry #talk# 19:52, 18 November 2016 #UTC#

Consider changing the lisence unless there is a proof of a breach of the lisence. Nghwaya —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CalRipken MP.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CalRipken MP.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

CV Chx1115 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WXIX News 1993.png

Non-free screenshot being used in WXIX-TV#News operation. File has a non-free use rationale, but this type of usage seems decorative and to not provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. I had originally tagged the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and the file's uploader did add a more detailed caption and a source to try and address my concerns; however, the main justification for non-free use seems to be that the station changed it's branding on a certain date. The sentence "The station changed its on-air branding from '19XIX' to 'Fox 19' and its news branding from '19XIX News' to 'Fox 19 News' on April 22, 1996, nearly ten years after becoming a Fox affiliate." seems perfectly understandable pre WP:NFCC#1 without the use of this screenshot. There is no sourced discussion of this particular screenshot it the article which would require the reader to see it to understand what is written. This is similar to adding a former logo to an article and saying that it the fact that it was once used is sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCCP. If there were specific sourced commentary about this particular screenshot withint the relevant section which significantly improved the reader's understanding of the subject, then I could see how removing it might be detrimental to that understanding and how non-free use might be justified. Lacking this kind of connection to the article content, I think usage is primarily decorative and the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the recently added caption isn't sufficiently connected to the image to justify including the image, then I agree the image should be removed and deleted (keeping the caption and citation in the article, of course). Thanks for the detailed explanation! I do think former logos enrich the TV station articles but understand that they push the limits of fair use too far. TV stations often have print logos that consist of simple line drawings – nothing more than stroked text. In the future, I'll seek out those logos from archived local magazines or newspapers and redraw them as public domain SVGs for Commons. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]