Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

File:Sonyarose.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the subject was deleted following

Sonya Rose is about a different person. – Fayenatic London 00:29, 23 December 2015 (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:Dodge City Law 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: Kept jpg, deleted png. Moved to the master article and removed from the season article. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these seem to be the essentially the same logo, so only one of them seems to be needed per

WP:NFCC#3b. If the .png file is deleted, then the .jpg file can be moved to the team's article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd prefer to keep the higher-quality jpg over the too-small png file, using the surviving file in both articles. The 2015 season was, indeed, the first season where this logo was used by the team. - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we only use a small thumbnail of the JPG image but there currently is a huge copy on Wikipedia, so if we decide to keep the JPG, it would need to be significantly reduced per
Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.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: KEpt in the team articles only and removed from the season. Source fixing is a later editorial matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in

WP:NFCC#8 because their usage is primarily decorative (the logos themselves are not the subject of any sourced critical commentary). -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At the time I added the logos to the article, the discussion of one team's rebranding and the other's entry into the league (replacing a long-standing team identity that had survived multiple owners and leagues) seemed to be sufficient reason to include them. There is, in fact, sourced commentary about the Wichita logo included in the article (and sourced to this news report), albeit brief to avoid giving
undue weight to that commentary. - Dravecky (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion is still open? Whether or not the image remains on the season articles, it's perfectly valid for the team article and thus should not be deleted. As it's been over a month, could somebody please close this as keep? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from
Stefan2 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- @
  Stefan2: I was able to find this website for the Wichita B-52s and the logo there looks like the one show in this 2013 news article so I am wondering if that's acceptable as the source for File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.jpg". As for "File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png", I was able to find this Twitter account and this 2014 archived version of the team's official website where the logo can be seen. Would any of these be acceptable as sources for the two files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

File:ChicagoMustangsPASL.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: Kept in the 2012/2013 article only with the updated source information. Peripitus (Talk) 08:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo currently be used in

WP:NFC#UUI so it should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that was the first season of the team and the logo was modified in 2014, per soccer tradition, after the team won the league championship. - Dravecky (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the star was added to the logo. And that graphic is much better than mine. So I wouldn't mind it being deleted. Maybe keep the one with the logo for the main page but delete logos altogether from the 2012–13 Chicago Mustangs season and 2013–14 Chicago Mustangs season pages. -- GrouchoPython (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it could be used in one article and not the other.--
WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- If the logo was
  WP:NFCC#3 requires that non-free usage be minimal, so limiting the number of article where a non-free image may be used is one way of ensuring this. This does mean that a non-free image can only be used in a single article, but multiple usages are harder to justify and tend to only be allowed when absolutely essential to the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This discussion is still open? Whether or not the image remains on one or more season articles, it's perfectly valid for at least one article and thus should not be deleted. As it's been over a month, could somebody please close this as keep? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from
Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- @Stefan: I checked for archived versions of the team's official website and found this one from November 2012 and a direct link to the image can be found here. Do you think this is sufficient to satisfy NFCC#10a? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Sanchez 2012-11-22.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nonfree image fails

Butt fumble (any reader could figure out that Sanchez was probably upset at the course of events), unlike a more carefully chosen image of the ball being dislodged. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:53, 23 December 2015 (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:BOOTHS THEATRE EXTERIOR 1869.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bogus "own work" claim, considering that the image description says year "1869", but the painting looks as though it was stamped by a "C. W. Williams" with the year 1918. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (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:BOOTHS THEATRE HENRY V 1883.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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously bogus "Own work" claim, given the date represented (1883). However, since this is obviously not "Own work", the source is unknown (so the publication date of the work cannot currently be verified to see if it is still eligible for copyright.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2015 (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:EM-spectrum.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File has been replaced by a vector alternative on Wikimedia Commons.

!DERP/3/PiM Talk 20:51, 23 December 2015 (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.