Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 16

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.

File:KZ Radio Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BigrTex (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

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.

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 in Germany national football team, remove all other instances. — ξ^xplicit 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFBEagle.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bleedingshoes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

Regarding the usage in "German Football Association#History", there is mention of the men's team winning four World Cups, but the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within in the article and

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.

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: remove from German amateur football championship. — ξ^xplicit 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFBTriangles.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bleedingshoes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

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.

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.

File:DFB 1911.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wiggy! (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

Note that the earlier logo of the DFB from 1900 has actually been uploaded to Commons as File:DFB-Logo 1900.svg with the rationale that it does not have the necessary level of Threshold of originality to be protected. Given that the 1911 logo is fundamentally the same with just a different colour combination and both logos are of similar age I would think that both should have the same status, either free or not free. Calistemon (talk) 02:29, 16 February 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.

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.

File:Banco Santander.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gr1st (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in

Keep for all current uses: Each use of the logo is for a company that is a legal entity in its own right. Yes, they share the same logo, but that is not in the absence of a unique one, it is because that is the logo each has adopted. There are no positive outcomes editorially in removing these logos from their respective articles, and I consider it to be a disruptive change. Readers would consider it odd for a logo to have been omitted, and I daresay another editor finding the articles like that would add the file back or upload another. Cloudbound (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change the license to {{
  PD-logo}} and {{Do not move to Commons}} per Marchjuly's concern below. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not sure if this falls below the
    WP:NFCR discussions involving similar logos have almost always resulted in non-free use only being considered acceptable for article about the parent entity regardless of whether the child entities use the same logo. One recent similar discussion I remember was Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 72#File:StagecoachLogo.svg, but there have been others such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 54#File:FirstGroup.svg. In the former, the logo was removed and replaced by a free equivalent. In the latter, the logo 's licensing was changed to "PD-USonly". Even so, the arguments made in those discussions that non-free parent logos are not generally allowed in articles about child entities would also apply to this particular case this logo remains non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • In the case of File:Arriva logo.svg, which was related to the FirstGroup logo review, it was decided in December that the logo would remain fair use, also used for a subsidiary. Personally I think this is a non-free file, but its use in the current set of articles is justified, and I reaffirm my belief that their removal would be disruptive. Cloudbound (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's anything disruptive about discussing whether the particular usage of a non-free file satisfies
        WP:NFCC. Going against whatever the consensus/close of this discussion turns out to be, however, might be considered disruptive. I still do not see how this type of usage is appropriate per UUI#17: All of the individual banks are clearly described as subsidiaries of Santander Group, which means the group's logo does not automatically become their default logo even if they lack their own specific logo. Anyway, for reference Banco Santander-Chile uses this on their official Twitter and Facebook pages while Santander Brasil, Banco Santander, Santander UK and Santander Bank respectively use this, this, this and this for their official apps. It seems that specific logos/images which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose for each individual bank and which would resolve the UUI#17 issues do exist, so again it's not clear why the logo for the parent organization needs to be used in each of these child entity articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Fails
          WP:NFCCE). This is not, in my opinion, disruptive editing. It's due process that ensures that when "global" consensus (NFC policy) is applied on the "local" level articles and files that are brought here, this too happens on a consensus basis. Nothing could be further from disruptive editing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
          ]

@Marchjuly: I said that the removal of the logos would be disruptive, not discussing their removal. Also, in case there is any suggestion or expectation, I will not defy the decision made here. Each subsidiary uses that logo as it is their logo, not because they have nothing else. App icons are not comparable with the actual logos used by banks on branch signs, advertising, posters, cards, cheques, etc. No offence but it would be ridiculous to replace a bank's logo with its app logo in an article.

Sorry if it seemed I was implying that you were intending to go against the consensus because that was not my intent. The point I was trying to make was better stated above by

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." , and I just don't see how omitting the logo from articles about subsidiaries of the Santander Group is a "big step backwards" or detrimental to the reader's understanding of what is written in those articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The logo is the group's logo just as much as it is each subsidiary's logo. Each one is registered as a trademark in each subsidiary's country. The NFCC concern is that the parent logo is used instead of an individual logo. The fact is that the individual logo is also the parent logo. Cloudbound (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: It would be disruptive in terms of a big step backwards for the article. Each file has a clear purpose for being in each article. If there is a decent alternative to the logo files then I welcome all suggestions, but if the result is they are simply commented out by another user in a passing edit then I cannot support that action. Consider the reader here and what their expectation of the article will be. Cloudbound (talk) 23:54, 17 February 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpha Chi Honor Society Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jasond101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

• Delete. Obvious NFCC violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:18, 21 February 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elfguy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

• Keep and change license to {{
  PD-logo}}. Individual words and the simple map of the earth are both not eligible for copyright protection in U.S. Maybe the map is copyright-eligible elsewhere. Investigate and tag with {{Do not move to Commons}} if applicable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Unfortunately, maps are typically subject to copyright protection, so {{
    Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have to agree with
      Stefan2. The map is not a simple enough shape to be below the threshold of originality. It is, however, possible that the map used in the logo is PD by some other virtue (ie. expiry if published separately before), but this would have to be proven. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @
        Stefan2: Who said anything about "simple enough"? (I said "simple map".) It is not eligible because its copyright has expired over 200 years ago. Map of a modern city is copyright-protected, yes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • @Codename Lisa: in that case, please provide the original publication date for this map. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1831 I believe. Could have been drawn earlier but Royal Geographical Society published it then. I guess the time when people wrote "Here be dragons" on the maps doesn't count. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you sure that this is exactly the same map as the one drawn in 1831? Different maps of the same location are typically very similar but nevertheless have separate copyrights. Compare, for example, maps from Google and Openstreetmap of the same location, and you will find that they are quite similar. --
              Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • It is a miniature map of the globe, pal! Your concern is far below de minimis. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not de minimis at all. The globe takes about half of the image. It's a central and essential part of it. If it's a copyrightable element, then its use here is not de minimis. See c:Commons:De minimis. If you are arguing that no one probably cares who owns the copyright, it's an issue that falls under the c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (ie. in fact, we do care). If you think this is PD by virtue of de minimis, please proceed to move this to Commons and we'll see what happens, Codename Lisa. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa! Misreading my comment and running miles with it! (I said Stefan2's concern is de minimis, not the map itself.) I already told you: The map's copyright is long expired. It is not even a map; it is an approximation of the globe. Let's all calm down and read one another's comments rationally, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:03, 23 February 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamont Sincere.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Imsosincere (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unneeded photograph of a non-notable musician uploaded to be used in a promotional autobiography. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  criterion F4 for having neither source nor license. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Image appears on the subject's Soundcloud and YouTube pages. While it's likely that the uploader owns the copyright, an OTRS ticket is needed. — Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 17 February 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.

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⚡ 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mssvs4unix+cmd.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaviC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low quality. Superseded by File:C Shell running on SUA.png and File:Korn Shell running on SUA.png. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:17, 16 February 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.