Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 73

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73

File:West Dunbs arms.png

Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:West Dunbs arms.png. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png

Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:90broad.png

Looks like it doesn't meet our non-free criteria. Removed from article. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image has a non-free use rationale for Pi Kappa Phi. The building pictured is referred to by it's address in the article, but that's about it. Usage seems purely decorative and does not satisfy NFCC#8 in my opinion. Also, the source provided for the image is just to the fraternity's national website so there's no way to verify when it was taken or by whom, and whether it is even the building in question. Is there some other way to verify how old the image is to see whether it is still protected by copyright? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a possibility this may be free by age. The larger version of this photo appears to be here [1], which you can see the people in front are dressed in the same period of clothing as other photos (that are licensed as free) on the Phi Kappa Phi page, and seems to be related to meetings at the start of this organization's history pre 1910. As such, if we can presume that data is correct, this should be out of copyright, but I would get second opinions on that. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I did try to trace this image back but didn't get farther than here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:@Masem:@Jo-Jo Eumerus: From Google street view, it looks like the building still exists, so maybe we could get someone in South Carolina to snap a pic? It's not exactly a replacement, since it lacks the historical element, but it does provide an image of the building in question. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see little difference between the version today and this, so I would agree NFCC#1 fails on this image. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is something unique or historical about the building which cannot be expressed by a free image, I also think this usage fails NFCC#1. The building (at least "90 Broad Street") itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article so there are still NFCC#8 issues and the fact the that building seems to still be standing is just another reason why this particular usage does not comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antonio Villegas

Images delete. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following files are affected by this NFCR:

These four images seemingly belong to the owner, who released them here non-free. As such, they may fail NFCC#4, and more likely NFCC#8. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I have to agree here; we generally require all user-created contributed content to be in CC or PD licensing, and if these are photos that were not published yet, that makes it more difficult. We should encourage the user if they can use a CC license in which case all such issues go away. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:875 caricia.png

I have retagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and added a few {{fact}} tags since we have no evidence that this logo ever was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan2 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 February 2016‎ (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Came across this one while running through Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files - the page it was used on is now redirected to another article that uses a different non-free picture. Does this one meet the TOO and thus eligible for deletion under F5? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely PD-USonly at minimum. (and arguably worldwide since XM is US-owned). --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So which is the better option: (1) {{PD-USonly}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; (2) {{PD-logo}} + {{trademark}} + {{Move to Commons}}; or (3) something else? For reference, I had removed this from Caricia (XM) since, in my opinion, its non-free usage clearly failed (and still fails) WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. That is why it became an orphan. It was argued in WP:NFCR#File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG, however, that old radio logos are OK to be used in gallery-like way in such articles per the guidelines of WP:WPRS, so I readded the image until that discussion could be resolved. If this is PD, then there are no issues other than perhaps adding a section titled "Former logos" and tweaking the caption to include the years of use really left to fix. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
PD-USOnly means that it can't be moved to Commons. Commons accepts images if they are free images in both the US and the country of their origin. If it's US-made then it should be PD-logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for catching that Jo-Jo. I meant to delete that before I hit "save", but forgot. I originally had option (2) as (1). Anyway, I struck that part out. Sorry for the confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to change the licensing to PD-logo, but I cannot find a source for the image. The channel's website is no longer online and I cannot find an archived version of it. Is there a way to work around this? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sirius.svg

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Sirius.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image is used as primary means of identification in Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada. Usage in SSR seems fine, but I don't think usage in the SC article is allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the company is a subsidiary or "child entity" of SSM, then using the logo is not something typically allowed. I removed the logo, but it was re-added with this edit by Bearcat. The fact that "Sirius Canada never had a separate logo; it just used the same one, and no 'specific to Canada' alternate version ever existed." seems to be convered by No. 17 and still usage is not allowed. Anyway, just interested in other opens here. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirius Canada must be allowed to contain a logo — it is absolutely, uncondtionally unacceptable for there to ever be any rule which has the effect of permanently prohibiting it from ever containing any logo at all. If you can figure out some alternative solution which enables the article to contain the logo it used, then by all means go right ahead with it — but it cannot and will not be left permanently unable to ever have any logo in its infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why it "must" contain a logo. WP:NFCCP says that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Why is Sirius Canada an exception to the requirements of WP:NFC? Moreover, per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." If the image should not be being used per No. 17 of the UUI, then a valid non-free use rationale cannot really be written. Just for reference, I looked www.siriuscanada.ca to see if an alternative existed. The logo being discussed here does not even seem to be the one being used any more so using it as the primary means of identification no longer seems warranted. The logo used on the company's official Facebook page, [ or this one might be too simple to be covered by copyright. If they are, then I believe they could be used instead of the non-free logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
#17 is not a feature of any external copyright law that inherently binds Wikipedia content, but is a rule Wikipedia made up for itself that's considerably stricter than any actual law actually governing what is or isn't actually fair use. Sirius Canada was not a subsidiary of the US company, but was a completely separate, independently incorporated company in its own right — but any rule which makes it impossible for an independent company to ever have any logo in its infobox at all just because it happened to share a logo with another company by fully legal agreement between those two companies, and thus prevents the former company's article from ever being able to include exactly the same "visual identification of the company's branding" that would apply to any other company on earth, is quite simply a patently unreasonable rule that deserves nothing but unyielding pushback.
There's something extremely wrong with any rule which sets up two different classes of content rights, whereby some companies are eligible to have their logos in their infoboxes while others aren't, for reasons which have nothing to do with any clause in any actual copyright law but are purely crap we invented all on our own.
As for the matter of the "current" logo, what you're missing is that Sirius Canada and SiriusXM Canada aren't the same thing. In exactly the same way as the US versions of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio were formerly two separate companies that merged to create the contemporary SiriusXM as a third new thing, there used to be separate Sirius Canada and XM Canada companies in Canada as well — which merged into a new Sirius XM Canada, almost three years after the US companies did. So the "current" logo would be incorrect in the Sirius Canada article, because it was never used by any entity that was incorporated as Sirius Canada — it's the logo of a separate successor company, which was formed by a merger with another company, and not the logo of the defunct company that was the subject of the article under discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The url I provided above was listed in the infobox of Sirius Canada as the company's official website. If it is for a different company, then it probably should be removed. Did Sirius Canada have its own official website which may be used to verify the logo was used?
Regarding the "strictness" of WP:NFC, it clearly says that they were purposely designed to be more strict than US copyright law with respect to the usage of non-free content on Wikipedia. Any discussion about whether the NFC is too strict or unreasonable should probably take place at that talk page since it involves issues that go beyond the use of this one particular in the article.
Regarding this particular image, it doesn't seem to be the one even being used by Sirius Satellite Radio anymore. Maybe the current logo SSR is using could be used in that article and this older one could be used in the Sirius Canada article. I say "could" because once again usage of non-free content is not guaranteed and it must be supported by a valid non-free use rationale.
Finally, pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been created with Wikipedia specifically in mind and not to necessarily reflect the common practice of the outside world, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sirius Satellite Radio isn't "using" a different logo than this either; it's also a defunct company, and the "current" logo is the logo of a successor company that was formed after it merged with a competitor to form a new third company with a different logo than either of the predecessor companies ever used when they were separate companies. The old Sirius logo is the only correct one on Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada, and the old XM logo is the only correct one on XM Satellite Radio and XM Canada — the new one belongs on Sirius XM Holdings and Sirius XM Canada, but not on any of the four predecessor companies.
And frankly, I care not a whit about how much "stricter than US copyright law" the NFC rules were designed to be; if they create a patently unfair situation where the Canadian companies are permanently unable to ever have any logo in their infobox at all while the American ones are allowed to have them, then they're unreasonable rules which deserve to be opposed and exploded. If there's a conflict between "NFC policy as currently written" and the principle that companies should be able to have their logo in their infobox, then the latter principle is the one that matters more. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the "latter principle" you are referring to above WP:LOGO? If it is, then WP:LOGO#Uploading non-free logos says "Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." There is also a hatnote for the same section which clearly says "This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos." Wikipedia's image use policy (WP:IUP#Fair use images) says bascially the same thing. The application of the NFC in this case has nothing to do with the "nationality" of Sirius Canada, so I'm not sure how this is being biased against Canadian companies. The NFC would apply and has been applied to companies/organizations whose parent and child entities are located within the same country, even those located solely within the United States. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We're not preventing logos of Canadian companies from being used, only when the Canadian company is a child company of a US company, which does appear to be the case for Sirius Canada. If there was a case of a US company being a child of a Canadian one, and both used the same logo and both were separately notable, then we'd not use the logo on the US page for the same reasons here. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. In addition, it only has nfurs for three articles, but it is being used in nine so it also has problems with WP:NFCC#10c. These kind of No. 17 violations are fairly common since it seems as if almost every editor who edits sports article like this feels there is nothing wrong with using the same non-free sports logo in multiple child article of the same parent. FWIW, It should definitely be removed from the userpage asap. It should also be removed from the child articles, but expect it to be re-added fairly quickly so it might be a good idea to link this discussion in the edit sum and possibly post on the article's talk page explaining why the image should not be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I commented out the image from the sandbox it was being used in per WP:NFCC#9 and from the articles it was lacking nfurs per WP:NFCCE. Image is still being used in the two team articles for which it has nfurs. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It has not been demonstrated that this usage is considered to be an exception to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The consensus regarding UUI#17 has been consistent in that using such logos in articles about child entities is generally not allowed. The image is currently being used in two individual team articles (Iran national football team and Iran women's national football team) in addition to Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran. Even though each usage has a non-free use rationale (nfur), a nfur only prevents the image from being deleted per WP:F6. WP:NFCCE requires that those wishing to use or retain a non-free image provide a valid separate and specific nfur for each usage, something which has not been done in my opinion. Moreover, WP:NFCC#3 requires that the usage of non-free content be minimal, and I don't see how allowing the additional usages in the team articles meets that requirement. Therefore, usage should be allowed in "Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran", but removed from all the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Heriberto Hernandez standing next to the 13 foot whaler he was manning when he was mortally wounded in 1968.jpg

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Heriberto Hernandez standing next to the 13 foot whaler he was manning when he was mortally wounded in 1968.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since this is a non-free image used to identify the subject of the article it is placed, shouldn't the image be cropped so that the subject of the article is the main focus of the image? Otherwise, the image seems to distract from its purpose (which is to identify the article's subject), which could potentially violate some sort of fair use rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye, but the boat should be included in part as well since it's part of the NFCR. Someone with better knowledge of how these folks operate should clarify whether that image is copyrighted or not, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's okay to not have to crop for this. But the caption needs to be clear who it is in the photo (I assume he is front left). --MASEM (t) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded this image, and I am surprised that I wasn't given a heads-up that it was under discussion.

    Note: The USCG listed this as a "courtesy photo" in a surfeit of caution, or inappropriate courtesy. As I noted in the description: "...although the Coast Guard lists this as a courtesy photo, it was taken by one of his shipmates, on his ship, and even if the bosun told the seamen to 'take five', I personally think a strong argument can be made that they were all 'on duty' -- making this a public domain image." Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_73&oldid=1077415844"