Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	9	33	6	48
TfD	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	2	0	2
RfD	1	22	3	26
AfD	0	0	2	2

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the

deletion review

.

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is
subst:prod
}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.

For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.

Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without
rationale
can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
{{
subst:nsd
}} if a file has no source indicated.

{{
subst:nld
}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.

{{
subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template
but isn't used in any articles.

{{
subst:rfu
}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.

{{
subst:dfu
|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.

{{
subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
.

Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons

{{
now commons
}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)

For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.

If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a
subst:npd
}}.

Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.

Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under
criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage
}}.

Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under
criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail
}}.

Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the
speedy deletion
per criterion 8 for files.

If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{
db-author
}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 June 9}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 June 9}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 June 9}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from
WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3
.

Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the
PD-logo
}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.

Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.

Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.

Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.

Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.

Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.

fair use but does not meet the requirements
.

Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.

Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1
– Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8
– Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that

editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding

than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons

for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

May 29

File:Rafah displacement camp airstrike.webp

[edit]

Non-transformative use of Reuters image, fails

WP:GETTY point 7. Wcam (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok but then I want you to suggest an alternative image to post Personisinsterest (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I would argue that this does not violate these rules. This photo is included in commentary of the article. Many reactions are explicitly based on the images and videos of the attack. This is an image from a video of the attack. And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. It’s exclusive commercial use by Reuters is already invalid. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Non-free historic image, the [u]se of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a subject of commentary, as I said. It is an image from a video of the attack, and videos and images of the attack are mentioned heavily in reactions to the attack and this article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. That still doesn't the image compliant with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion. The image has to meet all criteria, not nine or less. In this case, John and Wcam, according to CNN, this image came from Reuters TV, meaning it's a screenshot. This article confirms where the image originated from. Well, it says the image came from some random video, yet somehow, Reuters requires license for commercial use.

If it's a screenshot of a random video later obtained by Reuters, or if it's a screenshot from Reuters TV, then likely the image may have very little or no commercial value. Otherwise, if it's a photo made by news agency, like Reuters itself, then most likely the image has commercial interests as originally intended, and using the image in any non-commercial way would be very risky. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly – This isn't a press photo, unfortunately. It's a screenshot, and a YouTube video by Reuters channel confirms it, starting at around one minute and five seconds (1:05) of the video. Most likely complies with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion if it's made by a non-Reuters person, like some ordinary bystander recording the horrific event like this. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If this image is from a press agency, it should be speedy deleted under
WP:F7. If it is from any other source, it qualifies as fair use. George Ho's argument appears to be valid. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As far as I can tell, and based on the source shared by George Ho, this is content from Reuters. I don't think this being a still from the video changes anything with respect to
WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 00:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

May 20

File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg

[edit]

The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".

However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art

convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per this discussion. Deleting this will cause a disruption of detriment the understanding of the topic in question, and both covers provides both the same and the different facts. This is an alternative cover so it can't violate both criterions. The song is also inadequate without the American one, cause this is a country-specific cover, and specific covers are distinctive with global versions. This image was also displayed in a correct place. Kys5g^talk! 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine the article where it is used exposes to an American reader, and the reader compares its cover with the global one, and sees both covers are distinctive, would the reader understand? Heck no! Because it's missing another cover! If so, then will the global cover be subjected for deletion in the future, citing the
sourced commentary and crucial identification? Kys5g^talk! 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The "sourced commentary" and "crucial identification" are two common circumstances, not absolute. That depends on
balance
.

Because it's missing another cover! Please be careful of
WP:AAIDD essays should help you learn how to make your arguments count. George Ho (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, and
Wikipedia is not a repository, i.e. not a project to hold media content that lacks "encyclopedic context" to justify usage. It's not Discogs or any other sort. George Ho (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep because the image illustrates the credit differences mentioned in the article. Morrissey4Prez2024 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet
WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Fastily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

June 2

File:Page from Watson.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as

G7 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a copyrighted page (link). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Batangas city center - Plaza Mabini (statue) (Batangas City)(2018-07-30).jpg

Sculpture might not be free in the United States. Assuming the sculptor is anonymous, it is already in public domain in the Philippines by 2002 (1951+50+1 years), since it was made in 1951. But due to the

the applicable exception for commercial uses of public art becomes existing in the Philippines, this image can be undeleted and transferred to Commons. But until then, this image is not free in the U.S. and should be removed. Enwiki is bound to follow the laws of the United States as per WP:Freedom of panorama; the U.S. law does not provide FoP for copyrighted public sculptures and artworks. No use of turning this into "fair use" file because there is no article on the monument itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Cherbiy.jpg

Cover art of less successful cover recording. Omitting the image may not impact understanding of the song originally done by earlier artist. May fail

"contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

File:The Adventures of Baron Münchausen (1988 Film).jpg

Already one piece of non-free media on this page. No reason for this one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This poster fails
WP:NFCC#3a since there is already a film poster in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Aspects. hinnk (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

June 3

File:WFXZAzteca24.png

May be above c:COM:TOO Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons Text and basic 2D shapes with no shading would fall below the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg

File was prodded for deletion by me as

MOS:TEXTASIMAGES since it seems easily replaceable by either a quote from the book supported by a citation or simply by summarizing the page supported by a citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Aurora Rodrigues 1973.png

Subject is still living, so the image (evidently a mug shot) fails criteria (1) of

WP:NFC#UUI. Muzilon (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete The image is being used for identification of the subject of the article and doesn't contribution much to understanding the arrest as described in the file's rationale. hinnk (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1 includes, "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Aurora Rodrigues' notability is based on her post-retirement activism and writing about her experiences with the 20th-century dictatorship in Portugal. The photos are from when Estado Novo arrested her and are used prominently in her book on the events and in news coverage of her recent activism.[1][2][3] Does the exception in Criteria 1 only apply to performers? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, then perhaps the photo could be used in the body of the article in the section where the reliably sourecd commentary about the photo is found. Articles discussing Rodrigues which use the photo for illustration purposes aren't enough for justification; there should be discussion specifically related to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"there should be discussion specifically related to the photo", you mean discussion in
WP:RS? No, not in any in-depth way. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Photos of historical or otherwise encylopedically notable events or people are
Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus no longer considered to be replaceable non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's in the public domain in Portugal, but not the US. I appreciate the advice though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lycos Logo.png

Superseded by version on Commons. Cloudbound (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Today programme.png

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons as a {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as PD-ineligible-USonly: Commons requires that the file be "PD-textlogo" in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and in the country of first publication (which is likely the UK). The reason this file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is because the UK's threshold of originality is pretty low as explained in c:COM:TOO UK; so, even if this is "PD-logo" per c:COM:TOO US, there's no point in moving the file to Commons if it's only going to end up deleted. If someone feels otherwise, then it probably would be a good idea to ask about the file at c:COM:VPC moving the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yingying Zhang Govt Ex 100E cropped.png

Fails

WP:NFCC#1. This file is replaceable by this CCTV excerpt depicting Yingying Zhang, sourced from NBC News^[1] (which was, in turn, sourced from the FBI). CCTV footage generally does not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection and is thus in the public domain. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

References

^ Trost, Rachael (June 19, 2017). "FBI Offers $10k Reward for Information in Kidnapping of University of Illinois Scholar Yingying Zhang". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 3, 2024.

June 4

File:AmazingSpider-ManAnnual22.png

There is already non-free media representing this character in this costume in this article. No need for another. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speedball and Hummingbird from New Warriros Vol 2 Issue 12.png

Plenty of non-free media on this page already. No need for more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cake rarities.jpg

Virtually identical to standard cover. Not needd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NFCC#8. The caption also suggests it never even became an official cover? hinnk (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Pit render.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nom. -Fastily 00:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails

WP:FUR since the original article was redirected. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: "A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale." It is written in

WP:FUR. And it should be allowed to use non-free image for the better understanding of the subject. Boneless Pizza! Any other issue? I would like to know. Ping me when you have a comment on this. Kazama16 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Purpose of use section along already fails WP:FUR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The non-free content is proved to be useful to readers who don't have a idea of the individual appearance. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

And you didn't somehow read number 6? You could definitely improve the rationale of that image instead of being defensive here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kazama16 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yurun Group (logo).png

It is recommended to reselect authorization because it is likely not protected by copyright in the United States, but since the copyright protection threshold of the PRC is very low, it is still not advisable to import into commons.

It is recommended to cancel fair use and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-USonly}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: PRC isn't UK and it doesn't come from the country of kangaroo either. The protection threshold in PRC is low, I agree. However, PRC has its threshold much higher than UK but at a relatively low level. Kys5g^talk! 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense per nominator hinnk (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

File:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg

Sample of the 1968 Cass Elliot/Mamas & Papas cover recording not an improvement to understanding a 1930s classic song previously sung by other artists before the cover recording. Doesn't

contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Millions of Boomers were introduced to the song by TM&TP. Keep it for a few years until more of us die off. 2600:6C63:4500:2038:14A:7545:8494:11B1 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Keep it for a few years until more of us die off implies that the sample may possibly fail "contextual significance" criterion or NFCC all together, especially in the next "few years", right? George Ho (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thanthi One.png

Not "own work"; can't be CC0 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Know Your Enemy 2022 version.jpg

There's already an album cover at the article, a second one doesn't significantly improve contextual understanding per

WP:NFCC8. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, the 2022 version cover is significantly different from the original release (as is the album content itself). So inclusion meets NFCC8 by allowing this version of the album to be identified, and its omission would be detrimental to understanding. Where alternative covers are significantly different this is a commonly accepted use. Quoting

WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. the wub "?!" 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Neutral – Sure, the 2022 cover looks different from the original, but I don't think it's a sufficient reason to keep the alternative cover. On the other hand, the 2022 release was reworked or remastered or remixed (whatever you call it) and expanded as the double album as originally intended. I thought about originally voting "delete" because the alternative cover doesn't provide info substantially different from the other. However, differences between original and 2022 releases seen much greater than I thought, and deleting the alternative cover would leave readers much curious or assuming that the standard cover art is also used for the 2022 release. —George Ho (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Toronto Blue Jays logos

The use of both non-free files for identification violates

WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items), especially since the logo of the team is also present on the cap insignia. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

June 7

File:Admiral Group logo.png

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

File:Kliph Nesteroff onstage with Mel Brooks in Los Angeles.png

The photographer's consent should really be brought directly to

VRT; as is, there is no evidence of permission. Felix QW (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

File:JamesfLight.jpg

No evidence presented for why it should have been published without a copyright notice or before 1963, when renewal was still required. I have not been able to locate a free photograph of the individual in question, so relicensing as non-free may be an alternative. Felix QW (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

File:Oldrobotnik.jpg

Image is entirely redundant now that Eggman's infobox image contains both Modern and Classic Eggman's designs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footer

Today is June 9 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 9 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===June 9===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

[1]