Wikipedia:Files for discussion
Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
March 15
File:JamesMayAutocar.jpg
- File:JamesMayAutocar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arunkshrestha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Whilst there is text in the article about the incident to which this image pertains, the addition of this image does not significantly enhance reader's understanding of the incident anymore than the text explanation of what it spelt out. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- But for me it greatly enhances understanding of the incident. Taivorist (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: After reading the article, I agree with @Taivorist that having the image showing how the letters of the hidden message were laid out in the articles of the magazine does enhance the reader's understanding of subject, and so in my opinion it does not fail WP:NFCC#8. --Fhsig13 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, keep. None of the articles are actually readable minus the big letters, and seems to enhance understanding of the article by making the message clear. Maybe the cover bit to the left should be cropped further, but the right side of the image (the important part) is good IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The text in the article already explains how James May did this, I don't personally believe that this visual representation of this adds any significant understanding of the subject matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- But for me it enhances understanding. I did not understand without image, that all big letters were situated on separate pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were situated always on the same position on different pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were so big, when compared with normal text, and they had another color. Taivorist (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The text in the article already explains how James May did this, I don't personally believe that this visual representation of this adds any significant understanding of the subject matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 06:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The information about what he did is adequately described with text. The entirety of this represents one sentence in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep readers would be very confused without this image in the article. Certainly I wouldn't be able to imagine this with just the text alone. Mach61 04:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's a really cool image and I'm sure readers would be confused without it iff it actually was discussed in-depth in the text of the article with sourced critical commentary. Perhaps you'd like to be the one who makes these improvements to the article? :) -Fastily 03:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily Upon reviewing the article, it would seem the that entire "Dismissal from Autocar" section consists of what is now three paragraphs worth sourced critical commentary connected to the image, which I have also just added to. The section describes why and how the hidden message was created and laid out (as well as can be done with text at least, hence the need for the image), and I have also just added a blurb on how the message was detected, leading to Mays' termination. That said, and with all due respect, I am not sure what more can be added in terms of commentary related to the image itself, and moreover, I feel that what is present should suffice to make this use of the image in question compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Please accept my apologies, however, if I am mistaken in that regard. FHSIG13 TALK 06:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
March 22
File:EdwardConradiStatue.jpg
- File:EdwardConradiStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:SandyD'AlemberteStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:DAlemberteWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:SandalsObelisk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:SeminoleFamilyStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Sodcemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:SportsmanshipStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:WerkmeisterWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:BobbyBowdenWindow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgreason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
These are all images of statues and stained glass windowpane art, and cemetery (non-building) architecture from a list article, however there is no FOP for statues or 3D displayed artworks in the US. These images also cannot likely be kept as non-free either, as that would likely violate WP:NFLISTS, due to a lack of sourced critical commentary related to the images. Lastly, the cemetery image is now redundant to a better version on Commons, so it need not be kept either. FHSIG13 TALK 07:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that all nominated images apart from File:Sodcemetery.jpg should be deleted as freedom of panorama violations if they cannot be relicensed as non-free content. What exactly is the copyrightable element claimed in File:Sodcemetery.jpg though? Landmarks and monuments of Florida State University claims that the cemetery dates from 1937, which would render elements without a copyright notice public domain. Felix QW (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It should also be noted that the uploader has a history of copyright violations. Given the lack of metadata and small file sizes, I am also doubtful that these photos are the uploader's "own work" as claimed. Any photos of non-2D artworks should be retaken if we are to use them in articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Felix QW Thank you for clarifying that File:Sodcemetery.jpg does not violate FOP, as I was originally unsure of that, which is why I decided nominate that image as well. As for @Ixfd64's concerns about Mgreasons' claim of "own work", a Google Lens search confirmed that the image in question has not previously been published anywhere else online, so I'm not sure if there is grounds for deletion of this specific image on that basis, despite the uploaders' past transgressions.
In consideration of both preceding points, I have struck the cemetery image from the nomination.FHSIG13 TALK 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Felix QW Thank you for clarifying that File:Sodcemetery.jpg does not violate FOP, as I was originally unsure of that, which is why I decided nominate that image as well. As for @Ixfd64's concerns about Mgreasons' claim of "own work", a Google Lens search confirmed that the image in question has not previously been published anywhere else online, so I'm not sure if there is grounds for deletion of this specific image on that basis, despite the uploaders' past transgressions.
- If you feel dubious about the remaining Sod cemetery image, we also have this one from Commons. Felix QW (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Felix QW Thanks, that's a good find! That Commons image is better than the existing one for sure, and as such I am re-nominating File:Sodcemetery.jpg for deletion on that basis. FHSIG13 TALK 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:TATA IPL Auction 2024 Logo.jpg
- File:TATA IPL Auction 2024 Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vestrian24Bio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Invalid fair use on List of 2024 Indian Premier League personnel changes, as that is not a specific article on the auction itself, and so is not the logo of the article as claimed. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8 too. Note that this article was previously using File:Tata ipl auction 2024.jpg which is also at FFD for the same reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The Article mostly includes information about the Auction, Pre-auction stats (e.g: retained players) and Post-auction changes (e.g: withdrawn players). And the Infobox is titled as 2024 Indian Premier League Auction, which is what the logo is also about. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Article is a list of which only a part is about the auction. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per @Whpq, the image is not related to the entirety of the articles' subject, and so it fails WP:NFCC#8. FHSIG13 TALK 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Amarantine (Special Christmas Edition).jpg
- File:Amarantine (Special Christmas Edition).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hzpjxewy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is an alternate cover for the album. It is a Christmas edition which is substantially similar to the standard cover but with a different colour background and sparkles added. Fails WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, the image fails both of the above-named WP:NFCCP criteria, due to the presence of the standard album cover, as well as a lack of sourced critical commentary relating to the image in question. FHSIG13 TALK 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations
March 23
File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png
- File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crickdreamer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Generic logo being used in a specific season article, in violation of WP:GETTY point 14, and also failing WP:NFCC#8. Nothing in this logo demonstrates it's a logo specific to the 2023 season e.g. it doesn't have 2023 mentioned anywhere Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is a generic logo for the tournament itself, and as such is not representative of the season for which it is being employed to identify. FHSIG13 TALK 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Flag of the PLGA.svg
- File:Flag of the PLGA.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thespoondragon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
As stated in the source info, this is a vectorization of a raster image which is not from the organization itself. We do not allow non-free SVGs generated in this manner due to the infinite resolution of SVGs. Masem (t) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, the improper formatting of the image in question causes it to fail WP:NFCC#3b (minimal extent of use). FHSIG13 TALK 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
March 24
File:Borderline (music video) B&W.jpg
- File:Borderline (music video) B&W.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No need to have two screenshots to illustrate B&W/greyscale and color scenes, honestly. The free text would already suffice to educate readers about the subject of discussion. Furthermore, I'm hesitant to consider the pair of screenshots contextually signficiant to the whole song, the whole recording, and the whole music video. I'm hesitant to also consider the omission of the pair detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: After reviewing the article, there is definitely not enough sourced critical commentary connected to the image for it to pass WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Additionally, I question whether or not the fact that the image consists of two screenshots should also constitute a violation of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal usage). FHSIG13 TALK 06:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
File:In This Life (audio sample).mp3
- File:In This Life (audio sample).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sample/Portion not improvement to contextually understanding the whole album. Also, doubt that free text isn't enough; actually, free text suffices. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, this file fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) as it is a sample from a specific song which is not representative of the entirety of the album it is being used to describe, and while text alone can convey an equivalent, if not better description. Additionally, the file likely fails WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as there is no fair-use rationale present, as well as some other necessary information is missing. FHSIG13 TALK 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Why's It So Hard (audio sample).mp3
- File:Why's It So Hard (audio sample).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sample/Portion not improvement to contextually understanding the whole album. Also, doubt that free text isn't enough; actually, free text suffices. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Like the above file from the same article (and per nom), this file also fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) as it is a sample from a specific song which is not representative of the entirety of the album it is being used to describe, and while text alone can convey an equivalent, if not better description. Additionally, the file likely fails WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as there is no fair-use rationale present, as well as some other necessary information is missing. FHSIG13 TALK 22:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
March 25
File:Dont You Want Me.ogg
- File:Dont You Want Me.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andi064 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after being de-PRODDed, I still have concerns about the sample's ability to improve readers' understanding of the whole song. I still have to wait until the last seven to eight seconds to hear two lines of the first verse. Furthermore, the assumption that free text isn't sufficient may originate from mistrust toward the "free content" principles. To put another way, hearing the sample, I couldn't find any content from the sample that would be harder to summarize and understand in text. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I am honestly not sure how the user that de-PRODDed this file concluded that the sample in question passes WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) or WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). From what I see, there is one short, sourced paragraph referring to the song's instrumentals, however even then it talks more about prior instrumentals that were removed than it does about the final released track, and just a sentence or two about the lyrics. I concur with the nominator that this sample does not serve to enhance the reader's understanding of the song, and certainly not in any way that text alone could not. FHSIG13 TALK 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg
- File:Clash-Remote Control.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding and shortening the sample length, I'm still unconvinced that any portion/sample of the whole recording is necessary. Re-hearing the sample, I couldn't detect a content that is hard to summarize or describe in free text. Furthermore, I'm not confident that omitting the portion(s) is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. In other words, not contextually significant, regardless of (familiarity of) the genre and the band. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with the nominator, in that there is definitely not enough sourced, critical commentary referring to the sample, in the article. I also agree that text alone could convey enough about the song to enhance the reader's understanding of it as much as the sample could, if not more. As such, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), and once again I can't wrap my head around how the user that de-PRODded the file (also the same user that de-PRODded the file concerned in the previous discussion) came to the opposite conclusion. FHSIG13 TALK 05:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg
- File:Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mardochaios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even after de-PRODding, I'm still unconvinced that the sample is necessary (to understand the whole hit song), which would've put free text in shame. Furthermore, it's all music by instruments; no lyrics (yet). In other words, neither contextually significant nor proven that omission of the sample is detrimental to understanding the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As with the two discussions above this one, the same user is responsible for de-PRODding the file in question and for the third time in a row, I can't seem to figure out why they did it. The article this file is used in lacks sufficient sourced, critical commentary to support the use of this file, and even if such were commentary were present, the text alone would probably still enhance the reader's understanding of the song just as much as the sample does, if not more since the songs vocals are not present in sample. The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). FHSIG13 TALK 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg
- File:Rednecks and Broomsticks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hiplibrarianship (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free image illustrates a point in the cultural references section which is all of one sentence. The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the episode. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, the image is completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the entire episode it is being used to describe, and certainly not in a greater capacity than what text alone could convey. Fails the above-named WP:NFCCP criterion, as well as WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text). FHSIG13 TALK 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Originally uploaded per the redirect to this article, in place since 2013. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Whether the text can summarize what the screenshot shows isn't my main concern. The image doesn't improve readers' understanding of the whole episode, unfortunately. Such omission wouldn't affect how and what free text already educates about the whole episode, anyways. —George Ho (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
March 26
File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg
- File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dellwood546 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This bridge collapsed in the middle of a major metropolitan area, someone could go out right now and take a free image of the aftermath, so this particular screenshot is not irreplaceable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fair use claim is invalid. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Keep and move to Commons per below. --Bedivere (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)- Delete per nom, free images likely to come within hours Personisinsterest (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - CCTV footage, public domain due to no human input/author. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is CCTV? If that's true, I would say to reupload as a free file. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- StreamTime LIVE uses PTZ cameras, and they actively point and zoom them at various targets, mostly to follow ships going in and out of the port. These aren't fixed CCTV cameras. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)- This is true, however it is still from a general 24/7 livesstream of the bridge. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are claiming that they own the copyright: DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is true, however it is still from a general 24/7 livesstream of the bridge. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That has absolutely not been legally established within the United States. In some countries, maybe. In the US, there is no such clear legal precedent. We need to err on the side of caution. The original source itself [1] claims that their videos are copyrighted. -- Veggies (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep/upload full resolution/move to commons - CCTV or 24/7 webcam footage does not contain any original authorship which could be protected by copyright, see c:Template:PD-automated. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TheImaCow c:Template:PD-automated only applies to images from "a completely automated system", so this image would not qualify since it is from a camera remotely steered by humans. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)- I think it's highly unlikely that someone manually steered the camera to the bridge the moment before the impact, and even if someone did: Copyright claims by that person on the footage would be absurd. They don't own the camera, they didn't install the camera, they probably could not have expected the accident -> clicking a button to move a webcam is not "original authorship" IMO. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TheImaCow c:Template:PD-automated only applies to images from "a completely automated system", so this image would not qualify since it is from a camera remotely steered by humans. --Ahecht (TALK
- Keep, as per the automated CCTV justification above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As per the automated CCTV justification above. Additionally, the image is irreplaceable as it shows the collapse as it happened, not the aftermath. There are very few photos of the event as it had occurred. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with a Commons upload of the CCTV video linked in the {{External media}} template in the body, similar to what was done at 2020 Nashville bombing. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the video to Commons as File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm and added it to the article. — Goszei (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CCTV_video_of_Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse.webm --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CCTV_video_of_Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse.webm --Ahecht (TALK
- I have uploaded the video to Commons as File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm and added it to the article. — Goszei (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep/reupload as Commons file as per the automated CCTV discussion above. Also agree with Dellwood that this image of the bridge is irreplaceable and there is likely no comparable image PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This YouTube video seems to be the same as the one from the screencap, although it seems much more blue rather than the yellowish tint in the screencap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULzspJZuf8 -- Note the description: "The StreamTime LIVE camera captured the collapse. ... DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION." So... can we really just reupload the entire CCTV stream as a commons file under fair use? --Corporal (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like an example of copyfraud. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This YouTube video seems to be the same as the one from the screencap, although it seems much more blue rather than the yellowish tint in the screencap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULzspJZuf8 -- Note the description: "The StreamTime LIVE camera captured the collapse. ... DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION." So... can we really just reupload the entire CCTV stream as a commons file under fair use? --Corporal (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - The principle of copyright-free CCTV videos has never been legally established within the United States. The original source, StreamTime Live, explicitly says that
Duplication or distribution of our videos is strictly prohibited without permission. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms.
[2] I strongly urge that admins err on the side of caution here. -- Veggies (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: I concur with @Veggies, in that the image was taken from a source claiming copyright ownership and where no legal precedent exists in US copyright law to allow for re-licensing as Public Domain. By virtue of these two factors, the file in question more than likely meets criterion WP:F9 for WP:SPEEDY, as this seems to be a clear-cut case of an unambiguous copyright violation by the uploader. Secondly, (and thanks to @Goszei for doing this), this file is now redundant to a similar Commons upload, so it more than likely meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY as well. Lastly (and this only applies if the file is somehow proven not to qualify for speedy deletion), I also concur with the nominator that the file in question cannot be kept by virtue of fair-use, as the possibility that the collapsed bridge could still be photographed (and the existence of free media which depicts that) would cause it to fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). FHSIG13 TALK 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
March 27
File:Mayor's Office Festivals Billboard.jpg
- File:Mayor's Office Festivals Billboard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D graphic works, whether displayed temporarily or permanently. ✗plicit 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The image in question cannot be kept as free media due to the copyright issues cited by the nominator, nor should it be kept and relicensed as non-free, since I don't believe that it would meet the requirements for {{Non-free 2D art}}. Additionally, after reviewing current uses of the image in question, it would more than likely fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), in all five articles in which it is present. FHSIG13 TALK 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png
- File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iljhgtn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Two problems. Firstly, I cannot spot any "cover art" that would prevent us from uploading such a photo to Commons. Hence, it's not a fair use image. Secondly, and more importantly, this photo is under copyright as the website it's taken from does not publish its content under a free license. Schwede66 06:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: Firstly, the image in question does appear to depict the covers of the books, so the license template used on the description page is valid, as far as I can tell. Secondly, if the image is copyrighted then fair-use is the only avenue through which it can be used on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the image appears to pass all 10 WP:NFCCP criteria, so I don't see any issue with maintaining the status quo here. As such, I am recommending WP:SK, per Applicability point 3 (erroneous nomination). FHSIG13 TALK 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per all of the points made just above by Fhsig13. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
March 28
File:RCA Studio II Logo.png
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- File:RCA Studio II Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Talkkaris (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
An svg of the RCA Records logo is in the public domain for not meeting the threshold of originality. Since the Studio II logo consists only of the same Records logo with two generic fonts, would it meet the TOO as well? Carlinal (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Relicense and Move to Commons: I believe that the nominator is correct, in that as the image in question consists of simple text in two fonts, one of which has already been proven to be below the threshold of originality, the image in question is below that threshold as well. As such, I recommend relicensing the image as {{PD-textlogo}}, then moving it to Commons. FHSIG13 TALK 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Two of us sheet music.jpg
- File:Two of us sheet music.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Dig it sheet music.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
These sheet music covers only contain simple text/shapes and are thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. Licenses should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Convert to
{{PD-ineligible-USonly}}
. The Beatles are a UK band and TOO in the UK is very low. These are probably fine under US TOO however. -Fastily 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)- Aren't these US sheet music covers? And, if so, shouldn't US law apply here, rather than UK law?
- See here for a similar case involving the Harry Potter logo. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- How did you make the determination that these sheet music covers from the US? -Fastily 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that the non-free use rationale for File:Two of us sheet music.jpg lists that
the cover art copyright is believed to belong to Warner Bros.
. - I think it would be better to see the full-resolution cover, so the publisher of this sheet music can be identified. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's not good enough. We're going to need a citation from a reliable source explicitly describing these covers as *the* US covers before they're safe to upload to Commons. Heck, even the uploader isn't 100% certain here given their use of "is believed" in the attribution statement. -Fastily 06:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that the non-free use rationale for File:Two of us sheet music.jpg lists that
- How did you make the determination that these sheet music covers from the US? -Fastily 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
March 29
File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 1 cover art.jpg
- File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 1 cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 23W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 2 cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 23W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 3 cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Artmanha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 4 cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Artmanha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
All four cover arts violate WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items). I would suggest using this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 1) and this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 2). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Jamie-and-adam-at-sv08.jpg
- File:Jamie-and-adam-at-sv08.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dp76764 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This appears to be a picture of the subjects on a jumbotron, an unacceptable derivative work. ✗plicit 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Today is March 29 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 29 – (new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===March 29===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.