Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4

File:Britishpassport UK4.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 ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A free equivalent file File:British Passport 2020.svg exists which can be substituted. Jackycheung0929 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as if any copyright claim for the intended substitute would also apply to the image under discussion, though. The argument is that the design of the passport has not sufficiently changed since before 1973 (cf. File:Claudia Jones passport 00.jpg) and therefore Crown copyright on it has expired, an expiry we deem to be valid worldwide. Felix QW (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2023 (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:UFO over Billings Montana 2-1-2023.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 ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found an alternative photo that has been released into public domain by the author. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This photo isn't as good. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A photo having a lower quality does not exclude it from being the new image if it is a freely-licensed image. They both illustrate the balloon. SWinxy (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, so does a single white pixel. Keavon (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both pictures are poor quality but the public domain picture is dreadful, just a fuzzy white spot. The one being discussed for deletion is okay under the fair use rationale but one of better quality released into the public domain would be more desirable. If the US Air Force publish a picture in due course that they took before destroying the balloon it would be in the public domain under US Government rules.

talk) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support deletion and replacement.

WP:NFCCP requires us to use a free image instead of a non-free one when the free one serves the same encyclopedic purpose. The quality of both images seems comparable (we should zoom and crop the new one), but this is mostly immaterial. The best free picture would be one released by the Air Force, if it ever comes out. — Goszei (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess it's fine. But we should replace it when better images come out into public domain. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion and replacement as well (speedy, in fact). Free use image can (and has) been made. Fails NFCC#1. DecafPotato (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the highly publicized nature of this case, I'd be very surprised if the U.S. government doesn't release some photos soon. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this photo up, until a better, more visable one is acquired. Need a photo of the ballon, for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.58.54 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not a valid fair-use rationale, but, we're not sing the one of the tiny dot either. It is unrecognizable and pointless. Zaathras (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Alternative: as there is a free photo available. However, instead of the photo put forward by Ixfd64, I propose that this one be used, posted in the same (album/post/collage?) by the same author and also in the public domain; the picture has a higher resolution, the subject (the balloon) is more sharply defined, and the contrast is not digitally altered, revealing a faintly visible technology bay—all in all higher quality (if zoomed in and cropped). I agree with Goszei that a government-published photo would be the best free alternative out there. K.H.Q. (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as it doesn't violate copyright, this is far and away (no pun intended) the best and clearest image I think that is available on the balloon. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Non-Free Content Criteria on Wikipedia
WP:NFCC is deliberately stricter then the law. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It's unfortunately the best of the worst at the minute, until we either find a clearer image we can use under fair use rationale or someone uploads another, clearer image in the public domain. Neither proposed free-use image in this discussion is an improvement, unfortunately.—
ping}} me!) 20:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The zoomed out image doesn't show the balloon properly, while the supposedly low quality one does. Delete the image as a better quality one has been found under CC license —DarkSpartan (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the alternate proposals show much more sky than they do the balloon. The balloon can barely be distinguished without zooming in. Delete following new image below. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at thumbnail size, the PD image is absolutely useless. $ɱ$ (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: @DinoSoupCanada, Moops, Ineffablebookkeeper, DarkSpartan, XtraJovial, and Ɱ: Good news. Chase Doak — who one of the very best photographs of the balloon — has kindly released it under a Creative Commons license. Because it was submitted to Commons after appearing elsewhere, I contacted the author on Instagram and got confirmation that he was indeed the person who uploaded it to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet! I've update my vote to reflect this.—
  ping}} me!) 20:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
Great! 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per @Ixfd64. Adding image to article Crusader1096 (message) 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Ixfd64. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2023 (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:Jim Chamberlin.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 ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the description claims it to be by a "government photographer", the original source lists it as a courtesy image from the estate of the subject. This makes it difficult to determine whether America or Canada is the source country. Unsuitable for fair use as there already is a NASA image of the subject on the page that could be used instead. Felix QW (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2023 (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.