Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18

File:Bernardo Brusca.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonCalo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is licensed as {{

WP:F6
.

The reason I've started this discussion is because even if a rationale is provided, I'm not sure it would be valid per

WP:NFCCP, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (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:ManWolfSpiderManUnlimited.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ManWolfSpiderManUnlimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Crayak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails

WP:NFCC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2018 (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.

Non-free road signs used in list article

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: relisted on 2018 April 10. FASTILY 02:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:British Columbia Highway 113.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
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:Ganjamarsh.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: relisted on

(non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
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:John Franklin Enders nobel.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: image is not free (

talk) 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC):File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Materialscientist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). [reply
]

This photo has a subsisting copyright in the United States because Sweden has long-standing copyright relations with the United States. This could be converted to non-free use for use in John Franklin Enders, but would need to be removed from List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine ~ Rob13Talk 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The most recent Swedish copyright law was adopted in 1994, before the URAA date of 1 January 1996. According to that law, photos taken before 1 January 1969 are out of copyright. In other words, {{PD-Sweden}} files automatically comply with URAA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty reasonable to say that URAA copyright does not apply to this image as it was already PD in Sweden before the URAA date. Based on my understanding of
Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights such "subsisting rights" apply to foreign-made works that would be copyrighted in the US if made there and it's not clear that this would be the case here given {{PD-US-no notice}}; especially when first made abroad such a photo is unlikely to have a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I don’t think this photo is covered by Swedish law, The Nobel website doesn’t indicate where such photos were taken before 2007. It is possible it was taken in the US, where Enders lived and worked. I’ve come across what appears to be a fuller copy at NAP.edu which says the photo was courtesy of "William Charles of Beverly". I’m not sure if this person is the photographer or not but it does suggest the photo might be covered by US law.
    talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (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:Swaminarayan charity old.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: The linked OTRS ticket does not mention this file. Going to go ahead and delete unless someone has new details/information to share. -FASTILY 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AroundTheGlobe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10#File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg, this is just the older version. But the license is clear as mud. We need an explanation from the uploader or someone at OTRS to clarify it the license refers to this file as well. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The OTRS tag was added by
    Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (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:Robert Hardy Rex Features.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. As noted, the use of this image is in violation of

WP:NFCC#2 ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

There'sNoTime (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log
). 
The image was first discussed at
WP:NFCC#1 concerns. Indeed, I contacted Hillsdale College, which uploaded videos of Robert Hardy's seminars; in response, they would not grant permission to let the videos be used, implying that using the videos would exceed fair use limits. I also contacted other video uploaders and photographers, yet I've not yet received their responses. A screenshot of Hardy in a BBC program(me) would be tolerable, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 resulted in endorsing deletion of another screenshot from a BBC news program(me) due to BBC's commercial interests in the USA. If someone else can upload an irreplaceable image that has very little commercial interests (or a freely licensed image), that would be nice. –George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uploaded photo conforms to all the "base" written policy. It fully complies with

talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you mean the image of Robert Hardy or Rodney Bewes? George Ho (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you voted on the other, I'll figure that you meant Robert Hardy. Irreplaceable or not, Rex Features may still have commercial interests in this image. Per
WP:NFC#UULP, the use is unacceptable. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as it appears to be a commercial photograph from Rex Features Ltd., which is pretty specific about not allowing its use outside the terms of a license. --Holdek (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (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:Echo City November 2013.jpeg

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: Resolved.

talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smkphotos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License requires attribution but no author is specified. ~ Rob13Talk 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about copyright laws and rules, and I strongly suspect the original user Smkphotos, who is also the one who took the photo and made the composite, will not be back here soon. I do however have an email from Smkphotos saying that he was the one who took the photo. Would it be helpful if I forward this email somewhere somehow? Mark in wiki (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (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.

Portsmouth FC crests

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 the PNG version; no consensus for any license change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wanc.co.uk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These appear to be identical files uploaded under different formats. The svg is being used in the

WP:MCQ
, and no clear-cut consensus has been established (as far as I can find) on their use, but in this case I don't think much if anything is lost for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification by deleting the svg and keep the png.

The question has to do about the non-free use in Ladies article. The rationale provided for png is for the men's team article, and it appears that an IP (in their only edit) just added the file to the article with

WP:NFC#UUI
: the men's team has been seen as the "parent" entity, while women's and youth teams have been seen as "child" entities. I am inclined to say the same with respect to this particular use as well, but if others want to argue differently then please do. If the consensus is that the non-free use in the women's team is acceptable, then a rationale will need to be provided for it to whichever file is kept.

Lastly, I don't see how this can be considered {{

WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (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:Pattonb.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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pattonb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trehan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8
is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as handily failing
    WP:NFCC#8. Nothing at the article Battle of Asal Uttar discusses this particular arrangement of captured tanks. In fact, the article mentions the capture of the tanks twice: (1) "Ninety nine Pakistani tanks […] were destroyed or captured", and (2) "This battle led to the creation of Patton Nagar (or "Patton City") at the site of the battle […] because a large number of Patton tanks fielded by the Pakistani forces were either captured or destroyed at the scene." This very beige image does nothing to enhance readers' understanding of this reliably-sourced prose. Removing the copyrighted image from the infobox does not in any way inhibit readers' understanding of the reliably-sourced prose. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"Nom" has not given any policy based reasoning to delete image, but "my understanding". Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (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:Basantar2.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: no consensus, but remove from Indian Army. ℯxplicit 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basantar2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deepak~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets
    WP:FUC. It does increase understanding of the article and misrepresenting uploader's statement won't do anything. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No it does not. Please see below. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It's an obvious copyright violation.
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NFCC#8
is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That's exactly
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Meets
WP:NFCCP#8, shows the seizure of Pakistani tank as part of the battle for Battle of Basantar. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (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.

Dragonchess images

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. Until permission is forthcoming; if OTRS accepts a permission statement just ask for undeletion on

WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Dragonchess 'The Ground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Dragonchess 'The Sky Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Dragonchess 'The Underground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A visit to the source indicates that these images are non-free, not CC 3.0 as indicated. That makes sense, since the board game itself is likely non-free. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before uploading to WP I asked & received permission from the owner to use his photos for the WP article. The correspondence was done on the BGG site internal mail system. I saved copy of said correspondence. --IHTS (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:MTC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Forwarded emails aren't generally accepted, I'm afraid; if you take the OTRS route we need the permission to be sent from Zac Dortch himself (ideally using the
DoC wording). Copies of a conversation on another site's messaging system wouldn't constitute sufficient declaration of consent for OTRS purposes. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Figured as much, but thx. Appreciate the link (makes simpler for me). I'll see what I can do. p.s. I've no desire to become wiki-lawyer, but am curious: why isn't copy of copyright holder's response to "Wiki policy requires permission from the photo owner" of "Certainly. You have my permission to use any of my photos as you see fit. Thanks for asking." on
Board Game Geek (photos' source) internal mail system not fulfillment of CC BY-SA 3.0 language permission test? (I don't mean to be a pain by asking.) p.p.s. Yunshui, do you mind if I use you as mentor at your Talk if I have Qs re permissions on other issues -- I have some photos removed from other articles too that I'd like to get restored, OTRS is a de-motivating & confusing house of mirrors to someone w/o experience etc. --IHTS (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, you know you're welcome at my talkpage anytime; I'll help if I can. With regards to satiating your curiosity; the basic line taken at OTRS is that the copyright holder has to specifically state the terms of the licence they are releasing content under (I guess the statement above would count as releasing into the public domain, rather than a CC licence, but it's not 100% clear) - we also have to hear it from them. Statements like, "you can use my pictures on Wikipedia" aren't licence-specific enough, so we don't accept them. Appreciate that sending permission requests to OTRS is somewhat disheartening; if it makes you feel any better, reviewing them (at the time of writing there are well over 1,000 requests in the queue) is even less of a picnic... Yunshui 雲水 09:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! (And yeah, it makes me feel better. :lol: ) --IHTS (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (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:Kashinath-img.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

F9 by Stephen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ganeshprasadkp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log
). 

This is a screencap. Floydian τ ¢ 19:36, 18 January 2018 (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:Tasya Teles.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

F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Tasya Teles.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Garyjones027 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFC#UUI #1 - no fair use pictures of living people. GRuban (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_January_18&oldid=1142598946"