Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	22	24	46
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	2	0	2
FfD	2	3	5
RfD	37	40	77
AfD	0	22	22

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[edit]

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 May 13}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 May 13}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 May 13}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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 its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

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[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions[edit]

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

May 5

File:500Rs. Pakistani Rupee.jpg

[edit]

2017 currency. See c:COM:CUR Pakistan. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's lifted here, to double check I checked the current 2024 500 Rs. Banknote and it's the same except for the state bank guy, perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, could you please elaborate?

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free using {{Non-free use rationale currency}}. Wikiacc (¶) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:10Rs, Reverse, Pakistani Rupee, 2008.jpg

[edit]

2005-series banknote. See c:COM:CUR Pakistan. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free using {{Non-free use rationale currency}}. Wikiacc (¶) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

File:Choice (Australian consumer organisation) logo.png

[edit]

I feel like this (and the original version of the logo for that matter) should be simple enough to relicense as {{PD-textlogo}} instead of it's current use under NFCC, but I'm not too familiar with files stuff. Does it normally get exported to Commons if we determine that to be the case? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which I've just done. TOO is Australia is very low, and this likely exceeds it. -Fastily 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

File:Bank of Estonia new logo.svg

[edit]

Estonian official symbols of the State and insignia of official organizations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.) are not copyrighted per § 5 of Estonian Copyright Act 1992. Kys5g^talk! 14:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

File:Vanuatu Commonwealth Games.png

[edit]

This is not the logo of the Vanuatu team, it is the logo of the Vanuatu Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Below c:COM:TOO US, a PD flag and a symbol with little creativity with some text wrapped around is clearly below US TOO. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no info about Vanuatu flag being PD in both Vanuatu & the US, so I don't think this is safe to move to Commons. I've started this MCQ thread to get more clarity. Assuming that this is indeed non-free, then it should be deleted as an WP:NFCC#8 violation; I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage discussing specifically discussing this image in-depth in the article. -Fastily 00:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case at least, we're rendering the flag in such an abysmally low quality/detail that the main element that could be considered above TOO (the yellow thing in the middle left of the flag) is basically a circle. Your comments about the flag's copyright are probably correct, and may lead to a DR but they probably aren't applicable in this specific FFD. With no other real sources of artistic creativity/originality left, I would argue this is below TOO. I understand that the arrangement of several creative elements can indeed lead to copyright protection, but mere arrangement by itself alone usually does not (as exhibited here). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

May 6[edit]

File:Cafe Avole logo.jpeg[edit]

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: Relicense. Move to Commons per nom. (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the font is unique enough for this image to be eligible for copyright in the US. I'm thinking this image should be transferred to Commons. Steel1943 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense it. It's copyfraud. Kys5g^talk! 14:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:John Walker monument in Krugersdorp, South Africa.jpg[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in South Africa and the photo is not in use so we can't change to fair use. MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 Would you mind using simple English for easy understanding. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumbuka Arch I will try! You have the copyright for the photo. But whoever made the statue have the copyright for the statue. So your photo is a derivative work of the statue. This link: c:COM:DW explain more about derivative works.

In some countries you can take photos of buildings and statues because the way say there is freedom of panorama. This link: c:COM:FOP explain more about freedom of panorama.

South Africa is one of the countries that do not have a law that permits freedom of panorama per this link: c:COM:FOP South Africa. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 Noted. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

May 7[edit]

File:Union Church, Wiscasset, Maine, Smallest Church in the World.jpg[edit]

PD on Commons due to lack of copyright notice: c:File:Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine).jpg. Yann (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case unless the vertical text in the middle or that s-code on the back counts.[1] Then we can delete this version. Noting there are more postcards of the church there, maybe the same applies to them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT How is this possible? My first upload was PD because it was a postcard with no copyright notice. But it was immediately placed for deletion due to editor citing "most certainly copyrighted" and that the uploading editor (me) is bound by burden of proof and another stating that the postcard stated: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" which would constitute copyright." So why is it OK for Yann to upload the exact same postcard, with the exact same middle text with publisher on the back, without any information or explanation, as PD - but not me? pinging Marchjuly Maineartists (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Yes, the burden of proof in on the uploader. In the absence of proof, it is quite sensible to think that the postcard was under a copyright. Fortunately, I found an online copy showing the back and the absence of a copyright notice, therefore proving that the postcard is in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the edithistory, it seems that different editors saw different things. You added a licensing tag stating "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", where was the evidence for that? Compare the current license, which has a very different text. The speedy deletion tag was GF, I might have done the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, I have checked other postcards from the same source. They all lack a notice. In addition, even if they had a notice, it is improbable that the copyright was renewed, but that's more work to check. Yann (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You being a Commons-admin, I'll take your word for that ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking all of this in stride and with a giant grain of salt. As I have always said, there are WP editors that seem to know how to get around things. One editor can simply "take one's word for it" yet another places all the "burden of proof" on me. I could explain away like Yann, but it would get me nowhere in the eyes of some editors here. So in the future I will be using all of what I have witnessed here and on each of the deleted images (which are all the same, BTW) and the discussion on different forums. What is so curious about all of this, the image actually ended up being uploaded by way of PD. Which is how I initially uploaded it to begin with. Hm. PS My postcard is postmarked 1987. Maineartists (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point that at least I can't see any indication on the postcard or its back of being from ca. 1958 – it mentions the church having been built in 1958 as if that were a time in the past. We do know that it was pre-1987, but checking for copyright registrations could also be tedious. Felix QW (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:T. O. Bobe.jpg[edit]

File was based on this file on rowiki, which was deleted for no source/licence. Essentially this is an unlicenced file. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 8[edit]

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg[edit]

This file is in the public domain per {{PD-automated}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think US copyright has been settled with respect to this kind of image and the fact someone created a template for such a license doesn't necessary mean much, other than someone created a template for such a license. Even the Wikipedia article referenced in the template states that US case law is untested on the matter. Of course, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources for any purpose, but being unclear means it's probably best to err on the side of caution and keep this file licensed as non-free. Of course, if you can cite specific US cases in which this came up and resulted in such footage being declared ineligible for copyright protection, please do so since that will help further assess the file's copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, given recent case law on AI requiring that, even if directed by a human, works created by machines are ineligible for copyright, I would consider that analogous to CCTV cameras. Further this follows the 2013 monkey copyright lawsuits, where even if the camera placement and direction was done by a human, the photo itself was snapped by a monkey - and it was ineligible for copyright. No human snapped this photo, or any CCTV photo. AI prompting has far more creative input than CCTV camera placement, which in 99% of cases is for purely utilitarian reasons, and that is ineligible.

Under the law of the US, as exemplified by the AI laws and the monkey case, a work must be created by a human to qualify for copyright. This doesn’t qualify. In works where there is significant human alteration after the fact, that may be another story, but given the developments in AI and machine copyright I would think that carries over to similar stuff like this. Given case law around cases where a non human entity created a photo, even if supervised, have all resulted in ineligibility, unaltered CCTV photos are PD in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion on this file: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 19 § File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a number of years since that PUF discussion took place, it's possible that things have change; however, thanks for providing that link and adding it to the file's talk page. It's helpful to know this has been discussed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussion on this file: c:COM:VPC#CCTV screenshots and US copyright law. — Jeff G. ツ 13:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize a different but similiar file was being currently over on Commons when I started the COM:VPC thread about this one. This is actually quite useful to know and pertinent to what's being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free at least for now. Things can alway be revisted once established case law or a consensus over at Commons establishes this type of file is clearly PD and "PD-automated" works for these files. If this file's licesning is converted to "PD-automated at this time, there would really be no reason for the file to continue to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. However, there's also really no point in moving the file to Commons if there's no clear consensus established there that these types of files (particularly one's originating in the US) are clearly OK to host. Relicensing and moving the file to Commons is pointless if there's a real chance it's going to end up being deleted there; similarly, relicensing this and continuing to host this locally as PD (perhaps even using {{Keep local}} or {{Do not move to Commons}}) also seems counterproductive and pointless since "PD-automated" doesn't ever seem to have been intended to be used as a "local PD-USonly" type of license and compliance with US copyright law is what matters for local files. Therefore, it's seem the most prudent thing to do would be to continue treat this as non-free until more of the dust has settled. If this is kept as non-free and someone express concerns about whether it's use complies with WP:NFCC, then that could be discussed. That would also likely be more of a WP:NFCC#8 related argument (i.e. a more nuanced and WP:NFC#CS related argument), whereas this FFD requesting license converson seems to be more of a WP: NFCC#1 argument. At this time, I do think there's reasonable doubt as to whether WP:FREER is OK to invoke here and thus it's probably best (once again) to maintain the status quo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tramp art frame with maker's photograph.jpg[edit]

Derivative work. Needs permission from the photographer of the original picture in the frame (unless the image is in Public domain due to the age) Sreejith K (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+This is an antique frame with a historical image ca 1900. I am the photographer, and I uploaded the image. 108.50.210.104 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seem to be two issues here: (1) the copyright status of the photo and (2) the copyright status of the frame.
If the focus of this photo is intended to be the photographed photo, and it turns out that this photo is no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason (e.g. {{PD-US}},{{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-old-assumed}}), then a frameless version of the image can probably be kept and even moved to Wikimedia Commons; however, it would be helpful if the uploader is able to provide more information about the photographed photo's provenance (e.g. who took the photographed photo, when it was taken and where it was taken). The copyright status of the frame, however, may be a bit more complicated to assess since decorative frames, in particular, can be eligible for copyright protection as explained in c:COM:FRAME due to their 3D characteristics. So, the easiest thing to do might be just to look for the same photographed photo minus the frame and then work from there. For reference, a 2D slavish reproduction (e.g. a simple photo) of a copyrighted work is generally not considered sufficient to generate a new copyright for the photo as explained in c:COM:2D copying; it's the fact the this is a photo of a framed photograph which is what's making it seem like a WP:Derivative work, and that's (at least in my opinion) the only thing making the uploader's photo eligible for copyright protection. So, take the frame out and then all that needs to be sorted is the copyright status of the photographed photo.
Now, if the frame itself is actually the intended subject of the photo (which might be the case given the file's use in Tramp art), then photographed photo isn'tt really necessary and can be cropped out if it turns out to not be within the public domain. It's possible that the frame imagery could be treated as non-free (e.g. {{Non-free 3D art}}) and relicensed as such if it's use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but I'm not sure about that. In that case, though, the license for the photo would need to remain as is, and a non-free license and corresponding non-free use rationale would need to be added to the file's page for the frame. The main problems with any non-free image of "tramp art" would WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. A non-free image isn't likely going to be allowed as a reperesentative image of "tramp art" if it's reasonable to expect that a free equivalent image serving essentially the same enccyclopedic purpose as the non-free can either be found or created. This free image could be a really old image of an example of "tramp art" which is no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason, or it could be newly taken image in which the photographer and tramp artist agree to release their works under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the claim is that both the frame and the photograph inside it are sufficiently old to be out of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg[edit]

The sample is not used to enhance discussion about the song's production or lyrics. There is no critical commentary supporting the sample and therefore it fails WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

May 9[edit]

File:Jiminy Cricket (The Wonderful World of Disney character).png[edit]

Currently used to depict the character of Jiminy Cricket, but is made irrelevant due to File:Jiminy Cricket (cropped).png, which comes from the film's trailer. Fails WP:NFCC#1. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with the public domain image, per nomiator.

Sebbog13 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judge Egan Walker of the Nevada Second District Court.jpg[edit]

The linked website gives no indication that the photo has been released to the public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64: Wouldn't this be a {{di-no permission}} situation? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it would be a good idea to have a discussion in case there's something I missed. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Five Hundred logo.png[edit]

I understand the uploader probably uploaded this image as non-free to be safe rather than sorry, but I don't think the font style, the only possible aspect of uniqueness in this image, makes this image protected by copyright in the US. I'm thinking this should be relicensed and transferred to Commons. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as free and move to Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense and move to Commons as a PD-textlogo. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salix Homes Logo.png[edit]

I'm thinking this should be retagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but I'm not sure if the pattern of the circles is unique enough to be eligible for copyright in the US. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - definitely PD in the U.S., but not PD in the U.K. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 10[edit]

File:VINCE COLLETTA PAINTING BY ROMEO TANGHAL SR.jpg[edit]

Evidence of permission from the artist is needed. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Mr. Tanghal's email response to my asking for permission to use the painting of my father, Vince Colletta.

romeo tanghal <tanghalromeosr at yahoo.com>

Tue, May 16, 2023, 11:53 AM

to me

Hey Frankie,

Yeah, it's OK to post.

Romeo Tanghal Sr. Franklin222 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin222: Please follow the instructions at c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and have the artist forward their correspondence to the VRT. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethnic Composition of the Armed Forces in Burma, 1931.jpg[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion by Battlesnake1 with the reason: "Replaced with table in the Karen conflict article". Wikiacc (¶) 01:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aoid2.png[edit]

Substantially similar to standard cover, no need for more non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significantly different from the main cover artwork. hinnk (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ratboys AOID alternate cassette cover.png[edit]

Substantially similar to standard cover, no need for more non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this file and the one above, am I right in thinking that from the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCCP), the one that would be violated here is 3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"? Or 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"?

(I am uploader of the files, but I'm trying to be unbiased here - I am new and still learning!) GanzKnusper (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TresHanley2007.jpg[edit]

Orphan image, article where the image was used, was deleted recently: (WP:Articles for deletion/Trés Hanley). Delete per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Mika1h (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camila Cabello - C,XOXO.jpg[edit]

Per WP:NFCC#3a, the main cover File:Camila Cabello - C,XOXO.png conveys equivalent significant information pertaining to C,XOXO. And, per #8 of the same policy, the inclusion of this artwork will not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously no. The main cover doesn't covery equivalent significant information pertaining to C,XOXO because the latter one was made available for multiple significant retailers like HMV and Target, which means the first part of your opinion doesn't make sense. The inclusion of alternative covers for Guts and Sour proved it's necessary to let it be there, and not to remove it. Moreover, the alternative cover contains the title C,XOXO with the new font this era used everywhere, which is also the brand of this album, which means it's necessary to leave this alternative cover alone and not to remove it. In fact, the inclusion of this artwork will significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, definitely. H9v9n9 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not widely distributed. Neither the existence of Target exclusive nor the branding features described by H9v9n9 are ever mentioned in the article. hinnk (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit 2.jpg[edit]

Extraneous cover art: fails WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Other cover art already used. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 11[edit]

File:VaganovaStudetnts1.jpg[edit]

This looks like a screen grab of some kind. Copyright issues aside, the quality of this photo is poor. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heaven circa 2016.ogg[edit]

This file is the sample of a version of the song that was never officially released, furthermore, it is not subject to critical commentary in the article and therefore is not pertinent in being included in the article. Furthermore, without the Chris Martin version to compare to are not present in the article either, with this latter version being the officially released one. Therefore WP:NFCC is in breach. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 12[edit]

File:Mighty Young Joe GMSC Badge.jpg[edit]

Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, individual fair use logos available in respective articles, addition of a "handshake" icon doesn't seem to increase a reader's knowledge. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frequency.PNG[edit]

Unused, low quality, seems redundant to File:Sine waves different frequencies.svg. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Henry Moyle.jpg[edit]

Likely non-free image, file has copyright marking. Uploaded in 2016 with claim of permission and CC license, but no response from uploader when requested to confirm permission was obtained. Image no longer in use on Wikipedia, has been replaced by PD image from Commons. --Michael Snow (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the National Assembly (Hungary).svg[edit]

Hungarian works by official authorities (governmental works aren't copyrighted. Kys5g^talk! 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? I don't understand how that's a reason to delete the logo. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nomination proposes to relicense the logo as free, not to delete it.

According to the Commons page on Hungarian copyright rules, only edicts of government are exempt from copyright. We seem to derive that city coats of arms are exempt since they are introduced by explicit regulations. Do we know whether this is also the case for the logo at hand? As a secondary matter, do we have a source for the vectorisation? If not done automatically, the svg rendering may well also bear program copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visagesdenfants.jpg[edit]

Replaced by the original film poster, PD on Commons: c:File:Visages d'enfants, affiche.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as replaceable with a free alternative. hinnk (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing by Victor Brindatch oil on canvas painting 100x130.jpg[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC8 Contextual Significance. The image is being used in the article Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. The fair use rationale states "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" but the article is not biographical. The article is not about the file/art in question, the art is merely illustrating the topic of the article, and does not add significant understanding of the article topic. Consigned (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the painting nor the painter are mentioned in the article. hinnk (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Churchslogo.svg[edit]

Also affects:

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 16.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of a recent parade float. On Wikimedia Commons, dozens of images of parade floats have been deleted already (for example, c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Festival of Fantasy Parade and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teemo.JPG). As English Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law, this commercially-licensed image infringes the copyright of the float designer and must be deleted from the website. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 12.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted artwork on the truck. Too prominent to be de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 15.jpg[edit]

Same case as #File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 16.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 13[edit]

File:Wilfred Rhodes.jpg[edit]

No source information given; replaceable by File:Rhodes bowling front 3.jpg. Wikiacc (¶) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Between You and Me MusicVideo.jpg[edit]

Screenshot's easy to explain in brief words already. No need to display band members in the video just to identify them there. No proof that omitting the screenshot detriments understanding of the whole song (or music video). May fail "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dctalk betweenyouandme3.jpg[edit]

No proof that this cover art is of one of commercial releases. Found one promo-only release using it (discogs). Other (retail) cover art already used. Fails "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stewart Farm - Memoir of Aura Stewart historic marker.jpg[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. This historical marker is dated 2003 and there is no evidence to suggest that the text is freely licensed. As c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs states, "detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs [...] are almost always copyright-protected". ✗plicit 00:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—since the marker originates after 1989, the text on it is protected by copyright. The photo must be deleted to avoid infringing. (As a reminder, state government works like this are not automatically placed in the public domain like federal government works, unless state says otherwise, and Michigan's does not.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash of the titansposter.jpg[edit]

Remove from Andromeda (mythology). Pretty sure this image fails WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Andromeda (mythology)#In film since the subject of the article is not the film. Readers can just go to Clash of the Titans (1981 film), which is linked at Andromeda (mythology)#In film, to see the poster since the poster meets all WP:NFCC in Clash of the Titans (1981 film). Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Clash of the Titans is directly discussed and reliably cited in the article, where it l makes a visual point vital to the article. Thee point made by the scholar is that the film can be criticised for casting a white actress (pictured) as the (black Aethiopian) Andromeda, This is important to the article, as Andromeda has a long tradition of being shown as white, and the film is the major modern case proving the misrepresentation has continued. Saying folks can look elsewhere misses the point that the film's poster directly and visceral demonstrates the enduring and still-current image, which a footnote that most readers will skip simply fails to achieve. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twelfth Man Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

Copied from [2]. Now unused. (Unclear if F9 applies because the uploader initially claimed fair use.) Wikiacc (¶) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankit Tiwari Photos.jpg[edit]

Contains a watermark that doesn't seem to correspond to the uploader's username --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching on Google, it wasn't his own work. Delete. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlton logo 1995.jpg[edit]

This should be considered to be a fair use file due to its background and since this file isn't used in mainspace, converting it is moot and should be deleted. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wuthering Waves logo.jpeg[edit]

Now superseded by File:Wuthering Waves logo.svg. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Kelly Hill Top Dance Hall Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Harold Osman "Cowboy" Kelly (American, 1884–1950) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Day the Mountain Thanked the Sea Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dorothy Hood (American, 1919–2000) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawson Watson Landscape Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dawson Dawson-Watson (UK/US, 1864–1939) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward Schiwetz Academic Building TAMU Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Edward M. "Buck" Schiwetz (American, 1898–1984) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc (¶) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver Taps TAMU.jpg[edit]

Photo copied from [3], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menos TAMU.jpg[edit]

The sculpture depicted is copyrighted (as a US sculpture from 1992) but erroneously claimed {{PD-US}}. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victory Eagle Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

Photo copied from [4], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc (¶) 02:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:7sealpost.jpg[edit]

Seems to clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Culture of Sweden, given that this image is a poster about the subject at The Seventh Seal. It seems that the only page which this image would meet WP:NFCC#8 would be in The Seventh Seal, but this file is currently not in that article. So, delete unless the file gets put back into The Seventh Seal in a way that meets WP:NFCC. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the original uploader. Must have got this when there was not a lot posters for older art house films. All good for delete vote per the above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anup Gurung.jpg[edit]

Orphaned user photos, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salehsadman.jpg[edit]

Used for self promo on userpage. No other use. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television logo (1990-1993).webp[edit]

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television 1997.webp[edit]

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot and Spicy Sweet Potatoes.jpg[edit]

Weird border on the right. Possibly a crop. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitkatextracream.jpg[edit]

Unused, contains copyrighted packaging. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freshmen shiur 2010.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mby-students.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit Shoot 300mls.jpg[edit]

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is May 13 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 13 – (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 "===May 13===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates