Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10

File:FIRST FRC 2016 Stronghold banner.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 as

G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Updated the page with the official logo of this year's game. Since this image is no longer in use on any pages, I believe it can be deleted. I uploaded this image. Wywyit (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G7.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 13 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:Sdparty.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 ⚡ 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is only used for "decoration" when the organization it represents is mentioned in other articles (than the article of the organization itself). It may not meet the contextual significance criterion. Liangent (talk) 06:50, 10 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:ApikorosSleuth-bookcover.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 ⚡ 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Livneh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

Non-free cover art being used in

WP:NFLISTS because image is being used in a bullet-listed bibliography section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 10 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:Imbox deletion.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This cascade-protected file is as far as I can tell an exact duplicate of File:Ambox deletion.png, including copyright license and uploader. While I can see the benefit of having a differently-named title, having a file redirect (which would still be cascade protected) seems better than to maintain two different files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MediaWiki incorrectly reports that the file is an exact duplicate because the bKGD chunk (which specifies the image's default background color) is ignored. Each of the two files contains a bKGD chunk that's perfectly matched to the background color of the designated template type, which compensates for a bug present in older versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer (wherein 24-bit PNG transparencies are rendered as white – unless a bKGD chunk is used to override the default).
Such legacy support is not as important as it was when the affected browser versions were in wider use, but given that this file is causing no harm, its retention's modest benefit outweighs its deletion's negligible/nonexistent benefit. —
David Levy 16:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh. I didn't know about this technicall background - is this something like File:Ambox deletion.png and File:Ambox speedy deletion.png? Although I note that the Imbox file is currently almost completely unused, and mainly in "experimental" (?) templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I didn't know about this technicall background - is this something like
David Levy 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- (edit conflict) The two files seem to be identical, or at least there doesn't seem to be any apparent way to download the differences:

$ wget -O - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Imbox_deletion.png | sha1sum
05eec50a7244cb12aef46cf83e780bb9cc636a1c  -
$ wget -O - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Ambox_deletion.png | sha1sum
05eec50a7244cb12aef46cf83e780bb9cc636a1c  -

I don't see any reason to keep duplicate copies, but if one is to be deleted, then I think that it is better to delete the most recently uploaded copy instead (

Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You're correct; the two files are identical. I misremembered. The above explanation applies to other icons, but not to this one.

David Levy 17:20, 10 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:Official Logo of 2016 FRC challenge FIRST STRONGHOLD.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

G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This image was replaced with an image of higher quality. It is no longer in use on any pages and can be deleted. I uploaded the image. Wywyit (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for G7 since you are the uploader.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 10 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:Louis theroux.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 ⚡ 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same as

Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, although uploading a better version of theroux1 may be advisable - the Flickr here seems to be of better quality.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 10 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:Slugs handbill with Sun Ra every Monday.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: convert to {{PD-US-no notice}}. — ξ ^xplicit 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

let us document the continued vandalism by wiki admin stefan2. yes, keep searching wiki for all my postings, and delete them all.

Per article the venue shut down in 1972. This means that the handbill was published prior to 1978. Because it was published pre 1978 and there is no copyright on it (I checked the image) the handbill is in public domain. So it should be re-listed as a {{PD-US-no notice}} Rybkovich (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the entire publication, or was there more than one page? Has something been removed from the borders of the picture? --
  Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From what I know I am confident that this is the only page. I checked and a hand bill is what I thought it was - a piece of paper that you stack at a place or give to people to advertise an event that is happening at a club. The only aspect that would make the hand bill copyrightable is the place's logo. I would be surprised if they would feel like it should be copyrighted and if so would put it on the very edge of the bill. It does not look cut to me but I do not know. Rybkovich (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be something on the back of the paper? To save on paper, some of the advertisement was maybe printed on the other side? --

Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

We can't rule out that there wasn't anything on the back. But its also reasonable to assume that there wasn't, I think of hand bills as mini posters. To me its its more unlikely that there was something on the back, but that's a personal opinion. Rybkovich (talk) 21:54, 13 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:Gowind fair use.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 in

Gowind-class corvette, remove all instances. — ξ ^xplicit 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 10 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:University of Edinburgh logo.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: keep in University of Edinburgh, remove all instances. — ξ ^xplicit 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 10 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.