Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:25, 14 March 2017

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25

File:Theatre of magic pinball.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pinball machine artwork here appears to be more than de minimis since it is the focal point of the photo. I suggest converting to fair use, if appropriate, for the main article, and removing all other usage. A silhouette could be used for the purposes of an illustration in the pinball stub. czar 00:03, 25 January 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:Rikko.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the uploader, doesn't specify whether the copyright was transferred or who took the photo czar 00:14, 25 January 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:Rtw bi campaignmap goals.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of image deleted as fair use czar 00:18, 25 January 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:Rogue Unix Screenshot CAR.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright needs clarification. Is this a screenshot of Rogue or not? And why would it not be released under the same license as Rogue? If it is a manual recreation in the style of Rogue, we need more information on what has been changed and why it still has the fidelity to illustrate Rogue or just roguelike gameplay. czar 00:36, 25 January 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:Project Warcraft test1.svg

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; "direct manipulation" indicates it is a derivative work, and thus covered by Blizzard's copyrights Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks derivative of copyrighted artwork (by Blizzard). If it isn't, we need clarification from the author that it was just done in their style but isn't a derivative artwork. czar 00:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Orc and Night Elf is Blizzard artwork stylized. Havok (T/c/e) 22:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Havok, do you mean that it's a filtered version of Blizzard's artwork? Trying to surmise whether it's freehand and inspired by Blizzard or a direct manipulation of their image. czar 01:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct manipulation. Havok (T/c/e) 19:06, 8 February 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:Redspot.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing permission of artwork's creator. Current permission appears to only address the photograph. czar 00:39, 25 January 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:Stema e Bashkisë Belsh.svg

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 as PD-Albania-exempt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses, which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this license issue seems to be a problem with other municipalities of Albania (Template:Municipalities of Albania). The seal is public domain if the municipalities fall under the definition of "public authorities". Given the definition (couldn't find one in Albania's copyright document) of a public authority is "any authority with the legal mandate to govern public life of state, province, municipality [1], I would say that the "non-free logo" template should be removed in favour of "PD-Albania-exempt". Salavat (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:50, 25 January 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:Playstation rising dragon pack.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon artwork is copyrighted, needs free use release from the author or a fair use rationale to keep the image in the article. (Or delete.) czar 05:43, 25 January 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:Prod t2ePro.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork on dance pad, even if the uploader is the image's copyright holder, we don't have the permission for the artwork displayed. (Note that we already have many other examples of dance pads.) czar 05:46, 25 January 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:Pdiaspora shottingsat.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted software. SourceForge has it under a zlib license but I can't confirm on the project's website czar 05:52, 25 January 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:Charles Edison (draft registration card, 1918).gif

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 February 21. czar 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Edison (draft registration card, 1918).gif (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:Shenmue-II-logo.gif

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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This text is more artistic than a standard typeface... I would say that it's above the threshold of originality and thus needs to be marked as non-free with a fair use rationale. If it isn't, it's not in use, so it should be deleted. czar 06:04, 25 January 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:Stgigaprize.jpg

Subject is copyrighted artwork. Either needs fair use rationale or just delete. Only used in articles without contextual significance. czar 06:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the uploader and it's quite possible I'm biased here because this image was very difficult to secure permission from the Japanese photographer to upload, but I have two main arguments for keeping the image. First, I believe that as an ensemble of material whose elements may individually be copyrighted (i.e. a product package and a certificate whose text is largely illegible), the effect is transformative. The image cannot realistically be used to supersede either of the largely unrelated copyrighted works, but rather the image serves as a depiction of a typical prize bundle - a completely different subject for which the photographic rights have already been secured (permission from the photographer is on file with OTRS). I may be able to re-locate the original grant of permission in my records if needed.

Secondly, and in the alternative (assuming that the image is not deemed transformative), I do think it contributes substantially to an understanding of the topic at the Satellaview article. The Satellaview was an early attempt by Nintendo to foster inter-player connectivity and this was primarily achieved via events, competitions, and prizes for players. The image of the prize bundle reveals details (e.g. design, format, and text of award certificate, example of the kind of prize, composition of the bundle as a whole, etc.) that would be either trite or overly specific to include in text, but that are nevertheless significant to a full understanding of this important facet of the Satellaview. As far as the use of the image at the Bemani Pocket article, I think the same FUR as is used for any other cover art would be appropriate, although if cover art alone is the purpose of the image there, a cropped version would serve the same purpose.

I've added FURs for both purposes for the present, but I would raise no objection to removing the image from the Bemani Pocket topic as soon as a superior image becomes available. -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but the award itself would have to be the subject of some kind of commentary in order to warrant a non-free image of it. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 says that an image needs contextual significance from the article's prose, such that it would be a detriment to the reader to not have a visualization of the award. But based on at least the current text, the purpose of the award could be understood with text without a non-free visualization. czar 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the award itself would have to be the subject of some kind of commentary in order to warrant a non-free image of it" - There is a subsection devoted to the topic at Satellaview#Events and prizes. I also agree with your assessment that this is an image of an award (i.e. a transformative image rather than a collage of small copyrighted images of the cover art and the possible logo on the certificate) but as I understand it this means that the copyright vests in the photographer who took the photo rather than in Nintendo and Konami. The same principle supports the characterization by photographers like User:Muband who uploaded the image of the Satellaview at the top of the page and User:Evan-Amos who uploaded the image of the SNES at the top of Super Nintendo Entertainment System of their images as free images rather than non-free. Since they are the photographic copyright holders they can license it as they see fit. In this case I'm 90% sure the photographer had granted me agency to license his photo at Wikipedia and I licensed it as a free image. The permission should be available at OTRS. I'll check my records, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the subsection is unsourced? There are two copyrights in your image—the photographer's (we would need OTRS in this case) and the award designer's (the company's). People take photos of other people's works all the time—if the image is derivative of another person's work, their copyright has to be considered as well. Photos of products like game consoles are different because like a hammer or a toaster, it has functional use (non-artistic), so their design is not protected in derivative works. czar 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is unsourced, but that shouldn't suggest that none exist. I actually have a rather large number of sources in this topic which I have very slowly been translating with the intention of eventually overhauling the article. Sadly I will not be able to improve the article in time for a decision on the matter at hand. I hope we agree that if this is considered a transformative work then the only permissions that must be obtained are those of the photographer. I did check my records, by the way, and I remembered correctly that he had granted me agency to license it. If the image is instead regarded as a derivative work then all I can say is that I think it easily complies with the legal 4-part fair use test (noncommercial/nonprofit educational use, factual/encyclopedic use without meaningfully different ways to express the idea, full images in 320 × 240 pixels where 90% of the text is illegible and images unsuitable for reproduction, and with zero effect on the market), and more importantly that it meets WP:NFCC and that its omission would be detrimental to a full understanding of the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sm4mzxfurry.gif

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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per their descriptions, derivative of non-free, Super Mario series pixel art czar 06:21, 25 January 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:Chinmayi Sripaada.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 czar 01:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would potentially go in Chinmayi but there is reasonable doubt of authorship and plenty of free use alternative available. Would need permission from copyright holder czar 01:23, 2 February 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:Chibi-Robo! icon.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, under the assumption that it reasonably could be an official logo Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (logo) FASTILY 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding a compilation of Super Smash Bros icons that includes an image like this, so it's hard to tell whether this is an official silhouetted logo or a reimagining by the uploader czar 06:36, 25 January 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:Chaudhary Nizam Ud Din Bhatti.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 czar 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strange photoshopping (subject's face appears to have been pasted in...). Dubious encyclopedic quality FASTILY 06:26, 25 January 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:Reign online.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot says the game is copyright of "Fortyeight Network". We would need confirmation of permission to relicense from a representative for copyright holder, not necessarily just the co-developer. czar 06:27, 25 January 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:Château Rauzan-Ségla 1993.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 czar 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content (label) FASTILY 06:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth converting to fair use, considering the variety of free use alternatives that could work here czar 01:24, 2 February 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:Regeneration.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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, niche icon, no expected future educational use czar 06:30, 25 January 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:Team Aqua 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A set of minor logos from within the Pokémon series—one or two are definitely PD-simple and the rest are borderline, but my question is whether they have any potential educational use in the first place. I don't think they do. czar 06:38, 25 January 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:Mishima-Ushi(Bos taurus).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: in OTRS processing, file tagged as ticket:2017012510011069 czar 01:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use this file needs to be sent to OTRS by the copyright owner, which may or may not be the Nodai Genome Research Center, Tokyo University of Agriculture; until that permission has been received and logged, the image can't be hosted here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise that - the system isn't the clearest in the world. Loweredtone (talk) 13:19, 25 January 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.

Non-free images in "Hollywood Sportatorium"

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: stadium photo now on Commons & remove poster czar 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images being used in Hollywood Sportatorium in a manner which does not comply WP:NFCC. Neither image is the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking.

The poster art is also not needed per No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI because it is being used in the main infobox of Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1971 where it can be seen and a non-free image is certainly not needed for the reader to understand "Less than a month later, on September 1, 1971, Led Zeppelin stopped at the Sportatorium on its North American tour." which is the only sentence mentioning Led Zeppelin in the entire article. So, I suggest remove from "Hollywood Sportatorium" for this file.

The photo of the interior is captioned as "The interior of the Sportatorium prior to a 1982 Van Halen concert", but again there are only trivial mentions of Van Halen throughout the article and nothing which requires the reader to see a non-free image to be understood. There is also no specific sourced discussion related to the interior of the arena which requires that this image be seen to be understood, and unless it's non-free use can be better justified I can see of no reason to use the file. So, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of the interior of the long-since demolished Sportatorium has nothing to do with Van Halen and everything to do with the interior of the arena, it being the only known photo of the interior. There is no specifically sourced discussion about the exterior of the facility, but there are two photos of the exterior accompanying article. Additionally, the photo was taken by Suzzy Hald, who also--enthusiastically, I might add--agreed that the photo be included in the article. She indicated her assent in a now-closed Facebook group about the arena, and can be readily contacted to re-affirm that assent if needs be for any licensing concerns or questions. I suggest keep for this file.

As to the poster art, I agree, it is not strictly needed, but it is from the tour during which Led Zeppelin played at the arena, and is arguably pertinent in that regard. Given that it also adds to the aesthetics of the article by breaking up what would otherwise be a lengthy block of text, I suggest keep for this file as well. -Jhw57 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wishes of the copyright holder of a non-free image are not really relevant when it comes to the file's usage and Ms. Hald's permission is not needed unless she wishes to release the file under a free license compatible for Wikipedia. If it's possible to find sourced discussion the interior, then consider adding it to the article because that would strengthen the contextual connection between article content and image which is required by NFCC#8. Otherwise, you basically have a photo of the interior which is pretty much just shows some seats and stage that does not need to be seen by the reader to understand any of the article content and which would be pretty much indistinguishable to most readers from the layout of a similar concert venue.

As for the poster art, simply because Led Zeppelin played there does not make it pertinent to the article anymore than adding concert posters for all the bands who played there would be pertinent. Using a non-free image for aesthetic reasons basically implies decorative use, which is something that is not really allowed by the NFCC. If the main reason for using the image is just to break up a lengthy block of text, then any relevant freely licensed image could be used to do that or the text could be broken up without using an image at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhw57, have you contacted Suzzy Hald about releasing the photo under a free use license? That would resolve the issue here (see Wikipedia:Consent). As for the poster, I agree that there's currently no contextual justification for the non-free image. czar 07:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, but I will. Easy enough to do since she (or someone) edited the media file page to put her email address on it. -Jhw57 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhw57, any news? czar 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I just reached out. I'll report back when I hear from her. -Jhw57 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from Suzzy Hald -- she indicated she was willing to upload the photo herself, but wanted to make sure she would retain her rights. I told that she would and was granting a non-exclusive license, but referred her to this discussion and WP:CONSENT and WP:CC BY-SA to better understand. I also gave her to the link to the new release generator at Commons:COM:ET. -Jhw57 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: The image has been released under a free use license, and that version is now being used in the article. -Jhw57 (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:02, 25 January 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:Hitler Decorations.jpg

Whilst the composition may be the uploaders, Nazi era milltary awards are not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright on images of Nazi awards and decorations, unless they are copied from a previously published source within the past 75 years (original sources created by the Nazis themselves are no longer under any copyright that I am aware of). This image were created completely from the ground up by a graphics program I designed in Windows Paint specifically made to create and draw Nazi era decorations (I've used it in several professional papers and publications outside of Wikipedia without issue). File:HimmlerAwardsCase.jpg was created using the same program, and this image was approved over at Commons. There should be no issue here. -O.R.^Comms 17:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:These awards which are shown are all obsolete and the ones from World War I are either over or almost over 100 years old from the German Empire which has not existed since 1918. The rest are of Nazi Party or Nazi Germany awards and both have not existed since 1945; the Party is banned and that government defunct and like the Bundesarchiv Bild (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) photos from that era would not have copyright issues. And the composition of said photos are OR's own work. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Links to policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As to the relist, there is no copyright on a drawing of a Nazi or Imperial German award. As stated above this was made from scratch in a graphics program and is not a copy of a photograph or other such work. In addition, the awards themselves depicted are creations of defunct states 75-100+ years ago. Also, an image using the same program was accepted without issue at Wikipedia Commons, along with several other similar works by other editors [2]. -O.R.^Comms 15:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC) commons.[reply]
By policy, I was asking where you're getting that Nazi-era German government has no enforceable copyright. Because all other signs point to it using the usual Germany 70 p.m.a. unless you can show that some other case or copyright policy applies (and not by conjecture). Additionally, the image in question cannot have been "made from scratch" if it combines multiple images from other sources, which it appears to do. If the images are the uploader's own, that should be noted. I'm relisting this for outside opinions. czar 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The 70 year rule would appear to be fine here. The last time Nazi awards were displayed as actual decorations was May of 1945 which is now nearly 72 years ago. -O.R.^Comms 18:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for outside opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since these are drawings of Nazi awards, and not photographs of the awards themselves, I really don't know what else to say. The awards themselves were also never actually worn by Adolf Hitler, so this is not even a drawing of an actual award spread on a uniform, rather a conjecture of what one would look like. As for the drawings themselves being under some type of copyright, that would mean that every time someone draws an Iron Cross or a swastika it is under some type of copyright which doesn't make sense to me - also, in the professional world, books with drawings and depictions of Nazi awards are routinely published. Further, a third of those awards are Imperial Germany which certainly has no standing copyright (over 100 years old at this point). We almost need a new tag to denote the status of drawings of military awards created independently by users, but that is way above my level. I'll bow out at this point and leave it to more experienced users. I've published images like this professionally for about the past thirteen years with no issue. Why it is of such concern here is a bit bewildering. -O.R.^Comms 18:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat that these are drawings but they look like low-res copies of images, complete with the white outlining. Am I missing something in that respect? czar 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too technical, here, but they are from a "ribbon rack" program that I designed to show various spreads of Nazi awards. The individual awards themselves were drawn as JPG (and later PNG) files using Windows Paint and then later Adobe Photoshop. Of course I had to use original photos and other pictures of awards as templates to make the drawings, but no photo was directly scanned or copied. I've used this program for other professional publications over the years and have refined it as better image software becomes available. This is one reason I was actually thinking a different licensing tag would be more fitting, but I don't have the knowledge for that. I also don't have an enormous stake in this article, so I leave this one up to the community consensus. -O.R.^Comms 19:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musa khan at 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 ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly has US copyright restored by the URAA (if it was out of copyright at that time). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:26, 25 January 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:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.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: Deleted both as failing NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. If someone wants the suited image in the infobox they can be swapped - I leave this as an editorial decision - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two images fail Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (no contextual significance). The article Kazuma Kiryu already has a single fair use (infobox) image to identify the subject. The other fair use images need textual justification—such that their removal would be a detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. We don't need additional visualizations of the character apropos of nothing. If the full-body shot is important for identifying the subject, use it in the infobox instead of the other image. czar 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe image with the razor is there to signify that Kazuma Kiryu has been recognized in pop culture within Japan and that they used the character for promotion. That doesn't happen often for video game characters and it highlights his prominence in my opinion. Also the other image is supposed to be a full body shot to show how the character dresses generally, I think it does enhance the article as the current image of his face doesn't do that - although that image is important as well since it is the most recent (Yakuza 6).

Keep the one from the razor considering the impact it has on the character. The other image, in the other hand, is debatable because de could a full shot of the characters body in yakza 0 or 6 so se could remove one.Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using ga Cloud Strife and FA Lightning Final Fantasy as examples. Both use their first appearence as well as full shots as examples. Other nonfree images used in the article come with good reasons. Therefore, I suggest using the first image of Kiryu in the infobox.Tintor2 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the topic can be understood without the fair use images (that their removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding). It's hard to argue that the point of the razor image cannot be conveyed without the image—if the point is that the character was used in promotion, it can be explained in text. The non-free content criteria exists to keep fair use image use to a minimum. I wouldn't use those other articles as metrics, as they also need paring. If you want to swap the infobox and full-body images (deleting the non-infobox image), that would make sense to me. czar 18:24, 26 January 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:Nathan Drake Uncharted.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (contextual significance): This image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". The nature of the character's shirt color and type of tuck is perfectly understandable from the prose alone, and if an illustration of the tuck was necessary (though it is not), a free use alternative could easily be made. This image might fit better in the infobox than its current fair use image. czar 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe main image does not easily illustrate how the character typically dresses. Take Kratos (God of War) for example, the main image is the most current but scrolling down the page there is a full body image to show the readers how the character typically dresses. This in my opinion enhances the page, there's no harm in keeping them and I don't understand the urgency in their removal. Osh33m (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Osh33m, see the NFCC#8 link from the nom czar 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move it to the top and remove the one from the infobox. I dont know toó much about Uncharted but I think the full shot is easier to recognize. Then delete the uncharted 4 image unless there is commentary info about it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the best solution, so I've made the switch czar 18:11, 26 January 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:National Cycling Centre 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: image in use czar 01:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused non-free logo The Banner talk 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion. This kind of issue depends on the article's consensus: it shouldn't be deleted as long as it's in use, but it can be deleted via {{orfud}} if it remains unused for a few days. Given WP:CSD's prohibition of most types of speedy deletions for pages that have survived XFD discussions, this FFD could be seen as setting a precedent (whether for this specific image, or for orphaned images in general) that it shouldn't be setting. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner left a note at my talk, asking about my meaning, but I think it's better to reply here. This image does have an article (National Cycling Centre) from which it's currently absent; among other things, the image gets deleted faster if you tag it with orfud than if you bring it here. I'm unaware of the image being discussed before. Could you explain why you asked that, since I don't see anything in my words that would lead to such an idea? Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 26 January 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:CITY OF BALLAARAT at Southern Cross Stn.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared to be uploaded to ask one personal question in 2012. Not needed further on enwiki, not in-scope on Commons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 25 January 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:KelisiattheTaj2010.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 czar 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader depicted in photograph. Dubious own work claim. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of tripods and delayed shutters? Case closed. Kelisi (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelisi, would you please update your image(s) to clarify this, then? czar 18:11, 26 January 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.

@@ Line 323: / Line 323: @@
 ====[[:File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png]]====
+<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the discussion was: '''Deleted''' both as failing NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. If someone wants the suited image in the infobox they can be swapped - I leave this as an editorial decision - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 10:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)<!--Template:Ffd top-->
 :<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx" id="File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png">[[:File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png]] ([{{fullurl:File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2017+January+25%23File%3AKazuma+Kiryu+in+Yakuza+Zero.png%5D%5D}} delete] {{!}} [[File talk:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png|talk]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png|action=history}} history] {{!}} [[Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png|links]] {{!}} [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AKazuma+Kiryu+in+Yakuza+Zero.png}} logs])</span>&#x20;– uploaded by [[User talk:Osh33m#File:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.png listed for discussion|Osh33m]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Osh33m|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=File%3AKazuma+Kiryu+in+Yakuza+Zero.png&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span> {{!}} [[Special:Contributions/Osh33m|contribs]] {{!}} [[Special:ListFiles/Osh33m|uploads]] {{!}} [[Special:Log/upload/Osh33m|upload log]]).&nbsp;
@@ Line 333: / Line 337: @@
 I suggest using ga Cloud Strife and FA Lightning Final Fantasy as examples. Both use their first appearence as well as full shots as examples. Other nonfree images used in the article come with good reasons. Therefore, I suggest using the first image of Kiryu in the infobox.[[User:Tintor2|Tintor2]] ([[User talk:Tintor2|talk]]) 22:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 :: The question is whether the topic can be understood ''without'' the fair use images (that their removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding). It's hard to argue that the point of the razor image cannot be conveyed without the image—if the point is that the character was used in promotion, it can be explained in text. The non-free content criteria exists to keep fair use image use to a minimum. I wouldn't use those other articles as metrics, as they also need paring. If you want to swap the infobox and full-body images (deleting the non-infobox image), that would make sense to me. <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 18:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ffd bottom--></div>
 ====[[:File:Nathan Drake Uncharted.jpg]]====