Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

File:Jabal ad Dayt

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 does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:V, GEOLAND and GNG. Pin points to a location offshore of Sharm. Which is an interesting place to find a mountain. Although a 66ft high mountain is itself a novel idea... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 13 October 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:Logo of Amul The Taste of India, May 2018.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: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a non-copyrightable file and there is no evidence that the user has the right to license it. Take also note of the block reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree that it was mis-licensed. Salavat has already changed the licensing to non-free logo, the image can now be kept. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:32, 18 October 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:Logo of Fastrack Fashion Accessories, May 2018.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: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree that it was mis-licensed. Salavat has already changed the licensing to non-free logo, the image can now be kept for its own article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:33, 18 October 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:Logo of Himalaya, May 2018.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which may be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non free image with expired free use rationale since a File:Logo of Himalaya - The Drug Company.svg new logo is now uploaded to Wikipedia. The author has uploaded a bunch of copyrighted logos, so he may not be expected to be the owner of these logos to release as free image. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:26, 18 October 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:Logo of Wildcraft Accessories,May 2018.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non free image with expired free use rationale since a File:Logo of Wildcraft Accessories.svg another more recent logo was uploaded to Wikipedia by same author. We can keep only 1. The author has uploaded a bunch of copyrighted logos, so he may not be expected to be the owner of these logos to release as free image.--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:36, 18 October 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:Logo of Piramal, May 2008.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the now-blocked uploader has the rights to license this logo which looks copyrightable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non free image with expired free use rationale since a File:Official logo of Piramal Enterprises and Group.svg another more recent logo was uploaded to Wikipedia by same author. We can keep only 1. The author has uploaded a bunch of copyrighted logos, so he may not be expected to be the owner of these logos to release as free image. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:27, 18 October 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:Vignelli NYC Subway map 2008.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: Reduce the size. Consensus is clearly in favour of at least some resizing. No consensus on a relicense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4MPixel non-free images needs community agreement to remain. I strongly suspect that these may be the biggest NF images in Wikipedia. I also wonder if we actually need two such images Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4MB is tiny compared to most photos... many of my photographs are gigabytes in size... Regardless, the text and font in the images (maps) are unmistakably relevant to the notability of the iconic stylized maps, and parts of the text are actually also the subject of discussion in Massimo Vignelli's article.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 20:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NFC At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

We're looking at pixel count, not file size. 4MP = 4 million pixels. Non-free generally aimed to be 0.1 MP or less.

As for illustrating Vignelli's article, you can use closeups of the maps that are closer to 0.1MP, as used in this article [1], and have external links to the full versions (or even here {{external media}} to use in the body of the article. --Masem (t) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails
WP:NFCC#3a). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

A portion will not suffice, you're wrong. This is an artwork; it wouldn't be right to only show portions of a Picasso work just because it resembles the whole. Your argument is basically like having this photo at 50px or showing only the top right corner of it; it's a useless and poor representation of a work of art.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 20 September 2018 (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) 06:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I gave three options. If you don't like the idea of portions, you'll have to settle for a thumbnail. The default thumbnail size on Wikipedia is 220px. Given the nature of the work, it can be rendered at a larger size. The first map is currently rendered at upright=1.3, so apparently someone thinks that's enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion here, to choose one of those options. Yet I know that you wouldn't force a thumbnail or portion of some intricately-detailed work of art like Massacre of the Innocents, especially when the details are part of the relevant aspects of discussion in the article. We can make exceptions over this pointless and ridiculous rule. The high-res versions are easily found online!

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 14:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce per
WP:NFC#CS; it seems that particular encyclopedic purpose for that would be better served be a direct side-by-side comparison of any parts of the maps were the difference is significant as supported by reliable sources. Basically, the current non-free of 2008 verison seems to expect the reader to closely examine it in comparison to the original and find the differences on their own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2018 (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) 05:57, 5 October 2018 (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) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to favor reducing because closeups was met with opposition and because that would save the images from deletion. I've discussed the merits of these three options above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, can we change the licenses to {{
PD-text}} ({{PD-textlogo}})? There isn't anything here besides simple text, lines, colors, and circles. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Not without a thorough analysis. Everything is, in the end, just shapes and colors. The question is, (1) which shapes and colors can be protected to begin with, (2) are there enough elements like that for the entire work to be considered creative. See Commons:Derivative works#Maps and meta:Wikilegal/Copyright threshold of originality for logos (mostly about logos but contains a brief discussion on maps, in any case helpful in answering the question about the number of elements). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little excessive. There aren't any unique elements here, and no, lines and circles cannot be copyrighted in something like a logo or map.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 15:47, 14 October 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:2018 Commonwealth Games Gold Coast opening.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain mark does not confer a license. See c:Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, this image is orphaned with questionable licensing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:37, 18 October 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:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete questionable license and already moved to commons File:Pedor Manrique's seal, reverse.PNG --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:25, 18 October 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:Nebuly.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned image already moved to commons. c:File:Nebuly.png--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:04, 18 October 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:MusicalStones2.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks permission, already uploaded to commons File:MusicalStones2.jpg where it is being discussed. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:58, 18 October 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:Manpower Chart.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book scan. Copyright belongs to the IISI. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyrighted book scan with no valid fair use rationale. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:41, 18 October 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:San Telmo emblem.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The license on this page quotes a law that has nothing to do with copyright. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This link shows that this is a copy righted image for personal use only. (on a side note there is a discussion on commons as well. Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Telmo emblem.png --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:48, 18 October 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.