Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deleting Images)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 2 58 46 106
TfD 0 0 3 15 18
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 1 0 38 1 40
AfD 0 0 0 164 164

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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.

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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2021 January 16}} 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=2021 January 16}} 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=2021 January 16}} 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 1928, not 1922.
  • 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}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image 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 file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Administrator instructions

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:

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]

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

January 4

File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png

[edit]

File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Limorina (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is being used in the infobox in a section of an article. The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@P,TO 19104: I uploaded File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png and I really doubted that it was actually an interpretation of the character when uploading it, I think it should be deleted if we are to compare it with File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png, and plus half the article is covered by File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png and the other half is covered by File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png, the only reason why you may have thought that it (File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png) covered most of the article was that it was used in the main infobox. Limorina (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is a no-brainer, really: it's extremely low quality; it lacks author attribution; and most crucially, it obviously fails the replaceability test. We can never use a modern non-free depiction to depict an ancient legendary/fictional character, because any such depiction is totally arbitrary and could therefore be replaced with any other, including a free one that you or I could draw. Fut.Perf. 08:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: why delete both? I mean, you explained your reasons for deleting File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png, and I agree with it. However, the reason why File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png is because there is already a non-free image on that page and if that is going to be deleted then there is no reason at all to delete File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png. Also, File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png is used in the TV adaptation section so it is obviously not a "modern illustration" of any sort of a historical character. Limorina (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere in the nomination does it state that the reason is that there is already a non-free image in the article. The nomination is for WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whpq: WP:NFCC#8 states, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Now that File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is deleted, it's the only image conveying that significant information so I'm still going to go with keep. Limorina (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You are referring to WP:NFCC#3a. Look again at bullet point 8, "Contextual significance.". -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whpq: Sorry, you're right, but that still doesn't change anything, that says, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This image does significantly increase readers' understanding. We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character if it doesn't fit the criteria. Again, now that File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png is gone, it's fine to have this in the article. Limorina (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You said "We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character if it doesn't fit the criteria." My response is that we do. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whpq: That was a typo, I was meant to say We might as well delete every screenshot of a fictional character even if it fits the criteria, that still isn't my point anyway, my point is that because the image (File:Bamsi Beyrek depiction.png) is now deleted, this image (File:BamsiKurulusOsman.png) fits the criteria and shouldn't be deleted. Limorina (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

December 31

Samples at Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

[edit]

File:JohnCaleHallelujahlive29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Weebot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tartarus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:AllisonCroweHallelujah29seconds.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jingles68 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen original 1984.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The samples of "Hallelujah" cover recordings are used in the article. I PRODded them for my concerns: Either too many samples or files, or critical commentary of the article insufficient/inadequate to support the specific recording sample. May fail WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. The song was written and originally recorded by the late Leonard Cohen and then covered by later artists. The "Musical composition and lyrical interpretation" section (titled to this date), which uses the samples, already provides sufficient information about original and cover versions, and I've become uncertain about the necessity of the samples. Indeed, I've been no longer either certain or confident about the samples given to readers, so I assumed the samples were easy deletion cases. However, the samples are then de-PRODded, asserting that there should be a discussion of which one(s) to have in the article instead of deleting all of them.

To my current eyes, the samples are presented just to differentiate and merely identify who sang which recording, yet I am not yet convinced that the samples have increased the understanding of critical commentary. However, I may stand corrected if at least one of the cover recording samples shall be kept. Well, the Wainwright sample isn't necessary for me just to illustrate the single mirroring Cole's recording (or something like that), and I don't think Allison Crowe sample is needed just to illustrate Crowe's interpretation as a "very sexual" composition that discussed relationships, is it? Still unsure about samples of John Cole and Jeff Buckley versions, both of which have been more favored. BTW, I wonder whether a sample of the original Cohen recording would be necessary for better understanding and comparison. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep the original by Cohen and Buckley's version, delete others - Buckley's version is independently notable and is the basis for a plenty of covers, so it serves as a good point of contrast. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the original, Buckley and Cale. The Cale version is the model used by pretty much all of the later covers, lyrically and musically, including Buckley's. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Doctorhawkes: I recently uploaded and am listing here File:Hallelujah by John Cale (studio version).mp3. If you would like one of the Cale versions kept, shall you prefer the studio or live recording? George Ho (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Much of a muchness, but I think the studio I'm Your Fan version was first. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

December 29

File:De Blasio Letter to VNY.jpg

[edit]

File:De Blasio Letter to VNY.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Passani (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the city government of New York are usually copyrighted. Wikiacc () 04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Public letters written by US officials are in the public domain. To add to that, the letter has obviously been provided as an acknowledgement to La Voce di New York and meant for public display. Passani (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Public display is not the same thing as no copyright. Do you have a source for this claim? Wikiacc () 05:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Google will bring up plenty of references to how public letters by US government officials are in the public domain (here, for example). Passani (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The source you are presenting implies federal level US government. Point 11 even states "The same is not necessarily true of letters written by state government employees or government employees in other countries." The article is not exhaustive and say "U.S. government" without stating it is the federal government, but the source really says something different from what you think it does. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. You may argue that the page I quoted does not say what I claim it says, but it DOES NOT claim the contrary either. This requires more research that I intend to do. In the meantime, the image should NOT be deleted. Passani (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - not in the public domain as claimed in the license tag (public letter) or by reason of this being a US government work. Works of of the federal government in the US is public domain. A letter written by Bill de Blasio in his capacity of mayor of New York is not a work of the federal government. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Do not delete - the fact that Bill de Blasio is not a US government official is NOT evidence that the letter is not in the public domain. This requires more research. Passani (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete 1. State Government/ City level government are part of US Government. 2. Only document of Federal Government and direct subsidiary (e.g. NASA, US Army) are in public domain (correct me by stating US copyright law if i am wrong). 3. Can't assume something as public domain. You need proof such as law clause and/or DOB/Day of Death interpretation or other evidence, which clearly not applicate in this case. Matthew hk (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not delete (comment) - Still researching. Research on multiple levels. There is still space to claim Public Domain (albeit I'll hand it to those who argue that it is not as straightforward as citing copyright law when it comes to US states and city administrations), but even if there weren't, fair use can easily be demonstrated in this case. Passani (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You have stated your vote above....so i boldly strike off the duplicate. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked for legal advice. Here's my findings. It is correct that, as others argued, while public documents by US officials are PD, this does not automatically apply to documents by State officials or local administration officials, hence there is no support in copyright law for saying that this letter is PD. Having said this, Georgia vs. Public.Resource.org (Dec. 2019, which, to be clear is not the same case as here) seems to indicate that SCOTUS is going in the direction of considering work by State officials as PD. Here is the more interesting part though: in a case like this, there is a strong fair use argument, added to the fact that the chances that the author would object to publication are infinitesimal. Would the admins agree to keep the file if were I to change the metadata and claim fair use? I read what the WP:IMAGEPOL and it seems to me that this case would fall rather nicely in the non-free fair use admitted by WP. Passani (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of this image as non-free content would require that it meet all of the non-free content criteria. Without any stated rationale, it's difficult to evaluate if it meets the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The rationale is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.". I also observe that the 10 policies in non-free content criteria are either met or easily "meetable" Passani (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

December 28

File:Clear - Cybotron.ogg

[edit]

File:Clear - Cybotron.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philaweb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This audio sample is used in Clear (Cybotron song), Cybotron (American band), and Techno. I'm uncertain whether the sample is necessary to illustrate any of the article subjects: the song, the band, and/or one of genres. I'm uncertain whether the sample is contextually significant to most readers under WP:NFCC#8. I can hear just the music and lyrics, but none of those articles describes how and why the content of the sample is relevant especially for better understanding. Maybe it's about merely identifying and/or recognizing a subject associated with the content, but I don't think mere identification or recognition is adequate enough to make a sample contextually significant, is it? The sample was de-PRODded by Acousmana, so I'm listing it here. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't find any proof that this satisfies WP:NFCC#8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - as used in all these articles, fails WP:NFCC#3a. For the techno genre and band articles, the song is mentioned, but there is nothing about its composition, style, or anything else and is a clear fail on WP:NFCC#8. For the song article, there is a mention that a loop form this smog has been sampled by others. Is the loop in this sample? I don't know because the article just plops the sample down in the infobox and makes no mention of it in the article text. Even if this is the sample is the loop that is mentioned, it is a single unsourced sentence. The usage in the song article also fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly mentioned in article, again, lazy delete, look for refs, strengthen prose, notable track in history of genre. Acousmana (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Mentioning the song does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The onus is on the editor adding the non-free content to provide the references and prose that is needed to support the usage of the non-free content, and that content must be in the article, not just potentially could be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
it's just plain lazy and evidences ignorance of the subject matter, nothing more, we could pull up any number of WP:RS that would validate its inclusion in the article - add a cite request, raise the issue on the article's talk age, don't just start deleting sruff without drawing attention to what is being proposed. Acousmana (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@P,TO 19104, Whpq, and Acousmana: I made some improvements to Clear (Cybotron song). Have those improvements helped the sample meet NFCC? George Ho (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Very marginal. I will say no it does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Juan Atkins - Techno Music.ogg

[edit]

File:Juan Atkins - Techno Music.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jagged 85 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The audio sample is currently used in Detroit techno (genre), Electronic dance music (genre), Techno (genre), and Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit (compilation album). It was de-PRODded by WilhelmSchneider, asserting that the deletion would affect understanding of the articles using the sample. I don't know how this sample is contextually significant to the subjects. As I'm very certain, usage in more than one sample may conflict with WP:NFCC#8 and may be questionable, especially when freely-licensed open content exists and other too many samples are used. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete no comentary of the audio samples is seen. Does not satisify WP:NFCC#8 P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no sourced commentary about this particular sample. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, the track title, the compilation it's featured on, relevance to genre's history and name origin, deleting this is laziness, add the relevant prose instead, RS refs are out there, look for them. Acousmana (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Mentioning the song does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The onus is on the editor adding the non-free content to provide the references and prose that is needed to support the usage of the non-free content, and that content must be in the article, not just potentially could be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
it's just plain lazy and evidences ignorance of the subject matter, nothing more, we could pull up any number of WP:RS that would validate its inclusion in the article - add a cite request, raise the issue on the article's talk age, don't just start deleting sruff without drawing attention to what is being proposed. Acousmana (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I recently couldn't find reliable non-primary sources providing newer info about the specific song. All I can find are sources using broader term "techno music" and similar. Maybe I overlooked one source, but finding it is very difficult to this date. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
not difficult, three WP:SECONDARY refs here, on the first page of search hits, specifically mention the track. Acousmana (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Made a few improvements, but (to me) still insufficient to justify using the sample, especially when mentioning just "speech synthesis". Inserting examples of such synthesis wouldn't make a difference. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
you need to work harder, see Rietveld (2018) "The twelve tracks on the compilation are diverse, from the above mentioned house tracks and the commercially successful vocal dance anthem ‘Big Fun’ performed by Inner City and produced by Kevin Saunderson) to the genre defining electronic funk abstractions of Rhythim Is Rhythim’s ‘It What It Is’, by Derrick May, and Juan Atkin’s ‘Techno Music’, which ultimately defined the genre of Detroit techno." Also Rietveld (2014) "Although techno was first marketed as the house sound from Detroit, to distinguish it from Chicago house music, the name ‘techno’ was eventually adopted, echoing the title of one of the compilation’s tracks, Juan Atkins’s ‘Techno Music’... this is a leading EDM scholar, writing in academic publications, about something that is widely covered elsewhere. I also noticed you deleted the track Strings of Life, again, this is laziness and misapprehension at work, and I'm not even going to bother explaining why in this instance. Sorry, but editors wading into topics they don't have knowledge of and deleting notable audio examples without discussion doesn't serve the project, it actually undermines it. Acousmana (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those passages would still improve justification of using the sample in the articles (inc. genre ones), but you can still work on Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit, Detroit techno, and techno. BTW, maybe you should ease your "experts vs non-experts" attitude and assume that non-experts have done their best to make the project's standards consistent and high... unless I'm describing your attitude incorrectly. If you want File:Strings of Life.ogg undeleted, please go to WP:REFUND; alternatively, create a new sample via Audacity. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
certain commentators view the track as significant with respect to the coining of the word "techno," a sub-genre of electronc music/electronic dance music produced in Detroit during the late 80s, that you feel otherwise is no justification for deleting the file, we have sources, they conform to WP:VER, I fail to see the problem here, you are the only editor - in how many years? - to object to the inclusion of this file, yet you didn't even bother to raise it on talk first, how is that keeping "standards consistent and high"? I fail to see how this kind of editing is constructive. Acousmana (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Quoting you: you are the only editor [...] to object to the inclusion of this file. Incorrect, I'm not the only editor; other two voted for deleting the file. Regarding standards, I was discussing how non-free content is used reservedly and strictly. Not even a verified brief info about album tracks can suffice, and it's nothing to do with verifying an info. Furthermore, you said, you didn't even bother to raise it on talk first. Trying to discuss the file in an article talk page would be local consensus, which should not override or preclude the FFD procedures. If you doubt about the FFD process overriding the need to discuss at article talk page, please discuss at WT:FFD. George Ho (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
George, did you or did you not prod the file? non-free content, a 30 sec clip, usage a rights holder is most likely not going to dispute - unlike many other examples we could find - is hardly a high priority for FFD, or do you disagree? Inclusion of the track has merit, the sources support this view. Acousmana (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
George, did you or did you not prod the file? Why does whoever did what matter to you? I see no point in answering the question other than to provoke you into responding.

non-free content, a 30 sec clip, usage a rights holder is most likely not going to dispute - unlike many other examples we could find - is hardly a high priority for FFD, or do you disagree? Can you rephrase that? The question/sentence looks awkward to understand; I don't know what the subject and verb of the sentence are. (Oh, I'm using "are" because I'm using two subjects conjoined by "and".) George Ho (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that? I can, but I'm not going to. Acousmana (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You don't have to rephrase "hardly a high priority for FFD" if you don't want to. However, as I will say, if a content (free or non-free) is listed in FFD, then there must be a reason, most likely valid. For example, the appropriateness and suitability of a non-free multimedia content in any page of the open content project, even with permission from the copyright holder, are questioned and evaluated. Well, not every non-free content can be listed at FFD. Nonetheless, even a "free" multimedia content is listed for various reasons, like being unused in articles, unsuited for Wikipedia or Commons, or questionable licensing. BTW, we'll see whether others agree with your following statement, with which I still disagree: Inclusion of the track has merit, the sources support this view. George Ho (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I almost overlooked your reference to the same author whose one of works I cited already in the compilation album article. I don't see the need or incentive to use any other of her works. In one source you mentioned, she was reviewing a track as part of the album review. I'm trying to access the other work, but the link doesn't seem to work at this moment. George Ho (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The arguments I see above for keeping are that the song is notable and is an important part of the history and development of techno music. However, the sound sample is not being challenged on notability, or importance. The key issue is WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3a. The usage of this sound sample across multiple articles is excessive and unjustified. With respect to WP:NFCC#8, The non-free usage rationale for Techno Music, and Detroit techno state the sample music "is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus." There is no such discussion in those article nor anything else that justifies its use in the article. For the Electronic dance music article, the stated purpose is "history of electronic dance music." There is no explanation why we need to hear this sound sample in the rationale, nor is there any of that in thr article. In fact, the only mention of the song in the article is this sound sample itself. There is no article text about the song that I could see. The song is also used in Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit but there isn't a non-free usage rationale for it and so that also fails WP:NFCC#10a. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete yay!! yeah, lets scrub this sucky file that is an affront to WP:NFCC#8. 100% way to go on this. Awesome! Acousmana (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Inner City - Big Fun.ogg

[edit]

File:Inner City - Big Fun.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jagged 85 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Used in Big Fun (Inner City song), Detroit techno (genre), Electronic dance music (genre), Inner City (band), and Techno (genre). Uncertain about the sample's compliance with WP:NFCC#8 especially in those articles. The content contained in the sample is either briefly discussed in those articles (i.e. not enough critical commentary) or not significantly covered by sources. Sample was de-PRODded by Acousmana, so I'm listing it here. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep there is some comentary on the audio samples in Big_Fun_(Inner_City_song)#Impact_and_legacy. Given its description of "mixed a catchy lead vocal and synth hook with what was essentially a techno backing track", I think the audio sample could help readers. That is the only place where there was NFCC#8 commentary, though. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep again, lazy delete, look for refs, strengthen prose, notable track in history of genre. Acousmana (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    You won't reinsert the file in certain articles if the discussion results in the file being removed from those articles, will you? George Ho (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
contrary to what it might appear, have better things to do than run around readding/reupping stuff, have expressed feelings on the matter, if folk are bent on deletion, whatevs... Acousmana (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from all but Big Fun (Inner City song). Only the song article has any sourced commentary and that is very very borderline. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 26

File:Sergei Krikalev s97e5086.jpg

[edit]

File:Sergei Krikalev s97e5086.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I see no reason to keep this file here on En-Wiki, there is a copy on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - since the image is tagged as {{Keep Local}}, though there is no explanation as to why this should be kept. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Dr.K. is unfortunately silent to say his reason. What is other here than on Commons? --Ras67 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stand by Me (Ben E. King song) primary identity

[edit]

File:"Stand by Me" by Ben E King US vinyl Side-A.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:"Stand by Me" by Ben E King US vinyl 1986 re-release.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The original 1961 release(s) of "Stand by Me" charted well in the US and all right in the UK. However, the song either didn't chart in other countries, or I could not find other charts listing the original release. The song then has been covered by other artists. The 1986 film helped Ben E. King's original version receive much wider, global attention than the original 1961 release did (or didn't). Sure, the original release was successful in the US, but the 1986 re-release of the original version (helped by the film) was much more successful.

I uploaded a side label of the original 1961 US single release in order to replace a cover art of a compilation album misidentified as one of single releases. Then I uploaded the picture sleeve of 1986 re-release because a cover art, as I figured, may have mass appeal. Now I'm uncertain which one complies more with WP:NFCC#8, which wants an image to be contextually significant in an article. WP:NFC#CS (guideline) recommends just one primary identifier, but WP:GUIDES encourages common sense and make some exceptions. (WP:NFCC#3a wouldn't matter much because both images are identified as belonging to different releases and are not similar to each other.)

If original release is the standard and more preferable, then let's keep the side label of the 1961 US release. On the other hand, if a cover art is more appealing, and/or if a wider, more successful release is more preferable, then let's go for the picture sleeve of the 1986 re-release. However, let's keep both if both are too significant to be deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete rerelease - all that is necessary is one fair use image in order to get the big picture (per #8 and #3). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Stand by me by ben e king 1987 Levi's European single.png

[edit]

File:Stand by me by ben e king 1987 Levi's European single.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I uploaded a standard artwork for European (re-)release of Ben E. King's original version of "Stand by Me" as a secondary image for the lead infobox. The picture sleeve references one of Levi's jeans commercials and is different from the other picture sleeve displaying a screenshot of the 1986 film. However, I have been uncertain whether the Levi's jeans cover art complies with the "contextual significance" criterion (#8). The Levi's cover art was given to most Europeans in the 1980s, especially in the United Kingdom, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Levi's cover art is deleted due to criterion #8. The cover art may meet criterion #3a (minimal number of items), nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - rereleases album covers don't need to be included - all that is necessary is one cover per NFCC#8 and NFCC#3. Similar to Miss Anthropocene album covers: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 22. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    Umm... may you please find a better example than the FFD discussion you cited? That discussion is still ongoing; to this date, the rest of majority disagrees with you and favors keeping just two (standard) covers. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to my personal vote, not necessarily the discussion outcome. I doubt that all of the covers will be kept, is my point. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 25

File:Metal 2 Logo.png

[edit]

File:Metal 2 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17jiangz1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo that could be replaced with commons image per WP:NFCC. It should only be kept if doesn't meet the Threshold of Originality (which I think it does). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, not sure how you could replace a copyrighted software logo with a free image. I think it has enough going on to not fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Salavat: The commons image is a former logo of Apple Metal that doesn't meet the TOO. That's why I think this fair use image should be replaced by it. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If it is a former logo then I don't think it accurately represents the product anymore. The infobox should contain the most up to date logo for identification. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep; the logo is just a stylized letter and is marked improperly as nonfree. It should be marked properly as {{pd-textlogo}}, which would solve the concern here as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is disagreement about where or not the logo is above or below TOO.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Be Happy (Mary J. Blige song)

[edit]

File:Be Happy (Mary J. Blige song).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Be Happy by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both images are (almost) the same, so we shall decide whether to keep either the (non-US) square-ish variant or the US cassette one. I more prefer the US cassette variant because the song charted on Billboard and was targeted toward US customers primarily. At that time, presumably, single CDs weren't prevalent in the US at that time. On the other hand, the single also charted in Australia and the UK. I predict that the square-ish variant would be favored more because of consistency with most other singles, but I welcome input. George Ho (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete one or the other. One cover, not two, is permitted for visual identification. I have no strong preference which one is kept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement that only one should be kept. Which one is preferred?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

December 22

Miss Anthropocene album covers

[edit]

File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ss112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Граймс (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (December 2020 cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mediafanatic17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes - Miss Anthropocene (Deluxe December 2020 Cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theussfabulous (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Four album covers are used at "Miss Anthropocene" uploaded by different editors: original standard and original deluxe using variants of artwork #1 (a gallery of drawings, including a winged woman doing a selfie), and revised standard and revised deluxe using variants of artwork #2 (some statue of woman stabbing a globe with a sword). Honestly, I think deluxe edition covers are unneeded and too extraneous. I would prefer either standard edition, but I don't mind having both standard editions... unless having more than one cover art goes against WP:NFCC, especially #3a and #8. No opinion for now on which standard edition, but (again) deluxe editions have to go. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC); corrected, 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep original standard and revised standard cover. The deluxe editions are variants of these. The original deluxe cover is the standard edition cover on some kind of device's screen, and the deluxe revised cover is just a shading difference from the standard revised cover. I had no idea until just now that there even was a revised cover. (I created the article and uploaded the original cover, but other editors greatly expanded the article and now have obviously posted a multitude of covers there.) Ss112 02:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Original Standard cover only Admittadely, I was actually going to nominate one of these images for violating WP:NFCC, but I think I decided not to. I think only one cover is needed to illustrate the article per WP:NFCC. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Which standard cover, the original or revised one? George Ho (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the original standard and new standard: plenty of articles have both the standard and deluxe album covers featured on their page. I don't believe the original deluxe cover is super necessary. The original cover is the one featured on every CD and most people know the album by that cover art. The new cover arts only came out recently and indeed, until I logged on and saw a message in my inbox about files being deleted, I didn't even know new cover arts came out... either way, I think at least the standard revised cover art should be featured as an alternative cover. Граймс (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    You can tag the original deluxe cover (File:Miss Anthropocene deluxe cover.png), which you uploaded, with {{db-g7}}. Can you do that? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the original standard and revised standard: Most people know the album by its original cover, but streaming services and iTunes now have replaced the original covers. Both of the standard covers are necessary. No need for the deluxe covers, they are just variations of the standard covers. - Whitevenom187 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Violence (song) cover arts

[edit]

File:Grimes and i o - Violence.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lk95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Grimes and i o - Violence (Alternative cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anonpediann (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have one original cover and one alternative cover. The original is more graphic and seemingly offensive (but hopefully, encyclopedic... unless I'm wrong): it shows a drawing of a woman apparently killing someone with a sword... unless I stand corrected. The alternative is less offensive, showing pink background and some being facing up the air with some kind of "X" on the left eye. Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Number of items, either one or both covers may be kept. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep both: I don't really see a need to remove one of them. As above, many music-related articles feature both the original and alternate cover art of a song or album. It being "offensive" - hmm, I don't know about that. It's a drawing, and Wikipedia is not censored anyway... Граймс (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete alternative cover per nom - since it was uploaded second, and per 3a only one should stay. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both: Although 3a states that only one artwork should be used, this is an exception as one is the original cover and the other is the current cover. See Torn (Ava Max song) for instance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think there are exceptions to "#3a". If either one fails 3a, then that one fails 3a. Same thing I can say about #8. Also, per another FFD discussion, making exceptions to or ignoring this project's copyright policies is the last thing we wanna do. Furthermore, per WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines, the project sets higher standards on "fair use" (or non-free) content than the US copyright law yet still strongly encourages free content. BTW, I might wanna list both cover arts of "Torn" by Ava Max for discussion... right after results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    Oh, almost forgot, per WP:NFCCEG, how non-free (or "fair use") content is used and included shall be based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. George Ho (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    @George Ho: From my understanding, 3a is used for artworks that won't have much significance on the article, for instance deluxe edition covers that are hardly any different from the standard edition cover. However, these two artworks have very stark differences, and since there is two artworks that were released with the song, they both should be kept. 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", but the original artwork helps to convey equivalent significant information by informing readers that the artwork has changed since the release date, which in my opinion, is encyclopaedic due to its archival value. I notice that you were also the same user who nominated the artworks with Miss Anthropocene, and my arguments are the same with the users who think the revised standard album cover should be kept. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    I see your point about #3a, and your use of phrase archival value may be imply that you believe both pass #8 also. Right? Honestly, I'm unsure whether archival value is enough to justify an extra cover art. Sometimes, in my personal experience, one out of two artworks with very stark differences is kept, but that's a case-by-case basis: e.g. Should I Stay or Should I Go (FFD discussion), which was physically released and re-released long before the digital streaming era. Moreover, sometimes two covers with (somewhat) possibly similar elements can be also kept (especially by default); e.g. I Should Be So Lucky (FFD discussion where visual dissimilarity and wide recognition triumphed) and Hanging on the Telephone (FFD discussion). George Ho (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

File:(Can You) Feel the Passion.jpg

[edit]

File:(Can You) Feel the Passion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I recently changed the status of the image to "PD-ineligible-USonly". The artwork of (Can You) Feel the Passion, made either by the British record label Big Life or American record label SBK Records, consists of plain text and background color. The artist's name and song title use different colors but are still plain; they vary in sizes. I'd love to move this to Commons, but c:COM:TOO UK also applies. British law may have very low originality standards for British copyright, so let's decide whether the artwork may or may not be copyrightable there. George Ho (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

December 20

File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg

[edit]

File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:FREER: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion. Yes, I think so; the subject's article is rated C-Class and refers to a verbal exchange. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said on talk, there is no way to describe the appearance of these three women, two of them very well-known in the UK, one of them running the country (first female PM), without showing them. And there's no reason not to show them. The exchange, with Diana Gould not letting Margaret Thatcher speak, was widely discussed and remembered. A glance at that image will bring back memories to everyone who saw it. SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Neveselbert, I see that you've made 1,367 edits to Margaret Thatcher since 2015, more than to any other article (see edit counter). Do you want to see it deleted because you think it shows her in a negative light? Part of the interview arguably does, but she rallied toward the end, pointing out to Gould that she, as PM, was in a position to know the facts, and that in 30 years those facts would show that she was right to give the order to sink the ship. And indeed, it does appear that the ship was going to sail toward the Falklands, as the article, Gould–Thatcher exchange, explains.
The point is that this is an iconic image of a highly unusual interview, where the PM was confronted on live television by a member of the public who had some relevant expertise in the topic as a former meteorological officer. The event was inherently visual, voted in 1999 as one of Britain's top 20 most memorable television spots. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 04:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC))
  • Keep The file is part of the exchange used for identification purposes in the article about the exchange, thereby passing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Maneater sample.ogg

[edit]

File:Maneater sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). Looking at those articles, I don't think critical commentary is adequate enough to support this sample, no matter how much text is there. Speaking of text, I suspect primary sources are used more than secondary ones in the sections where the sample is placed. May fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: I see no critical commentary on File:Maneater (Nelly Furtado single - cover art).png. WP:NFC#CS: where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article? BTW, quoting one of most common circumstances from WP:NFC#CS, eh? That's not the only circumstance in mind. I'll quote what the guideline says also: In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance. Those shortcuts are part of WP:NPOV. And this one as well: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.

To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion. Meanwhile, the sample is used in "Music structure and composition" section, cited by MTV article that covers interviews transcript (actually, where MTV interviewed primary source, Furtado herself), Furtado's quote from the song's music distributor website, The Age article covering an interview with Furtado (but in prose form), and a sheet music. Well, being primary sources doesn't prevent themselves from being just as reliable as secondary/non-primary ones, though careful and strict interpretation is encouraged strongly. However, (re-)listening the sample, I don't see the sources discussing the specific lyrics used in the sample, and the sources briefly described the song without going too much detail. Furthermore, per WP:FREER (which supports WP:NFCC#1), the synopsis of the song can be adequately explained by free text without needing a non-free content, like an audio sample.

Now about using the sample in the "Music and lyrics" section of the album article, the section itself mentions lyrical and musical content of what the album itself contains. However, I'm still unsure whether the "Maneater" sample is necessary there for readers to understand/identify the subject of discussion. I also am struggling to figure how and why the sample is too significant to be removed from the album article. The album article already describes Furtado's approach and (change of?) direction from her previous albums. Also, the song itself is briefly and adequately described in other sections of the album article. Also, the album cover adequately identifies the album already, so why need samples there?

If you especially disagree with me, I welcome your response. Seems that I made a long reply, didn't I? George Ho (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Keep" in which article, the song article or the album article?
Keep the file, for the song article.
And this one as well: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.
To my interpretation, the guideline discusses which non-free content can be chosen to adequately and sufficiently (and primarily, if necessary) identify the article subject. In this case, the song article is adequately identified by at least one cover art, which you doubt. If you still doubt the cover's compliance, then please list it for discussion.
If we must pick only one, I'd argue in favor of keeping the sample and removing the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:PromiscuousSample.ogg

[edit]

File:PromiscuousSample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Currently used in Loose (Nelly Furtado album), not Promiscuous (song). If there's not enough critical commentary in either article to support this sample, and if not enough secondary sources can support this, then the sample would fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: I see no critical commentary on the cover: File:Promiscuous.png. WP:NFC#CS: where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. Since the article is about the song, not the cover art, I think we should keep this audio sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that you inserted the wrong sample as part of a lead infobox, which I corrected for you. I may still have doubts about its compliance with "contextual significance" and WP:NFC#CS in either article, especially Promiscuous (song). I also have doubts about using the sample as part of the lead itself. Not just that, the sample still contains mostly the chorus of the song, which is not specifically subject to critical commentary in either article. Furthermore, either (per WP:FREER) the lyrics can be briefly described in text without needing a non-free content for further understanding, or readers can already understand what the song is about by reading the whole article without needing an audio sample. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: Something must have gone very wrong with copy paste on my end, I apologize! Thanks for correcting that. I think the audio sample is more useful for identification than the cover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. Oh... I can suggest that you think the sample's more suitable for the song article than the album one, right? George Ho (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Right. Face-smile.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

December 19

Samples of Bad (album)

[edit]

File:Michael Jackson - Bad.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TehRandomPerson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael Jackson - Dirty Diana.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TehRandomPerson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael Jackson - The Way You Make Me Feel (Album Version).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NCFan12312 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The three audio samples are used at not only their own respective song articles (Bad (Michael Jackson song), Dirty Diana, The Way You Make Me Feel) but also the album article Bad (album). Somehow, those files lack rationales for usage in the album article. I could have boldly removed the samples from the album article, but the articles transcluding the samples are Good Articles. I'm listing the samples here instead. WP:NFCC#10c is resolvable in no time, but what matters more is each sample's compliance with WP:NFCC#8, especially when used in more than one article. George Ho (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As I just found out, the FAC nomination was rejected partially because someone had concerns about the audio samples. George Ho (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC); edited, 23:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

December 18

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing.jpg

[edit]

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is free image File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell US vinyl.png at Commons already. The Dutch sleeve of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing", the song first recorded by American singers, wasn't used in any other territorial release. The US release used a generic sleeve instead. I'm not confident about the sleeve's compliance with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. A picture sleeve of another song was deleted without opposition. Why not delete this Dutch sleeve? George Ho (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

George: I know you have a penchant for side labels, but they are redundant not only in their logos and insignia, but also in the information they include, which can already be found in the supporting infobox. When they are available, picture sleeves always enhance articles, because they usually provide an image of the artist, or in this case artists, from the era the song was released. The artwork also provides an aesthetic quality which adds depth to an article far beyond what a plain side label typically does, because they often capture the spirit of that era. When I create/embellish articles, I select images with these criteria in mind, with only scant regard for their nation of origin. One image for each major charting release is not undue, and WP:NFCC does not seem particularly applicable here. These images have remained on the article for nearly three years with no concerns raised. - JGabbard (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you still doubt an ability of a plain side label with plain, simple elements as a visual identifier of any single release, then please ask the deleting admin to relist the other image at FFD (the one I mentioned at OP). Any copy of the same deleted image uploaded without proper procedure or discussion may qualify for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Back to the Dutch sleeve itself, I still don't see how deleting a Dutch picture sleeve showing two artists (Gaye and Terell) and song title would harm the understanding of what's already understood by free content and its ability. As I see it, the song was first sung by Gaye and Terell and then covered by later artists. Most readers would think the same about the song. Just in case, I can add an available free image of Gaye, but I don't know when. (A free image of Terell ain't available like... now.) Appearance (of a picture sleeve), even when quality is aesthetic, and contextual significance are neither interchangeable nor similar to each other. To put this another way, I trust free content's ability (i.e. free text and multimedia) to help readers adequately understand what the song is. Why can't you? George Ho (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
George, we have very different perspectives and preferences, and we need to be able to compromise, because I can seldom countenance the changes you propose. It's not about "trusting" free content. It is fine as far as it goes and is helpful with most things, but is limited in scope. In short, side labels are pedantic and boring, but picture sleeves are artistic and cool, frequently complementing the song. And in my experience, they are also what readers to prefer to see. - JGabbard (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's await the results of the discussion before deciding whether to compromise. Meanwhile, I'm careful about not listing one too many to FFD. George Ho (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing - Donny & Marie Osmond.jpg

[edit]

File:Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing - Donny & Marie Osmond.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm uncertain whether an image of any release of the Osmonds' version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" is necessary, especially for visual identification. In other words, I have concerns about its compliance with WP:NFCC#8. Sure, the Osmonds' version charted in the US and Canada, but that's all there is. Even adding reception to prove notability of the version may neither improve the image's compliance with NFCC nor make critical commentary be sufficient enough to guarantee a non-free image that would be too significant for deletion. Free content may help readers adequately understand any version of any song charted in a couple or few countries without making a non-free content necessary; see one FFD discussion and another FFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Picture sleeve images may not be necessary, but they certainly enhance an article beyond what a simple side label can do. In this case, the Osmonds' cover is notable, having charted in the biggest music market in the world, the United States. That means that it was played by Casey Kasem on American Top 40 and thus aired worldwide. Even if it had not also charted in Canada, which it did, charting in the U.S. alone is more than enough. Donny and Marie are reknowned artists, and the image is also significant in that it corresponds to that of Gaye and Terrell. - JGabbard (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Being biggest music market in the world, the United States, certainly won't cut it, especially for me. Neither would the renowned (when will "reknowned" be an officially accepted alternative?) singers' prominence and fame, especially at the time. Neither would the sleeve's enhancement ability (or lack of ability) beyond what a simple side label can do. As I see it, not enough info can help save the image from being deleted as not significant enough to increase the understanding (of the song itself or the version itself). Furthermore, I have thought about merging the Donny/Marie section into another section, like I did with Detroit/Elton John one recently, but I'm still awaiting the results of the discussion. On the side note, the Germans were fortunate to receive the picture sleeve, but then Americans were (un?)fortunate to receive the generic sleeve but then have been able to recognize the song title on the side label. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
George, the arguments you advance could be made against most any picture sleeve. But in my experience, readers to prefer to see them more than they do side labels. - JGabbard (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not arguing in favor of either a side label or a picture sleeve. I'm arguing about whether deleting any visual identifier like this sleeve would impact the understanding of the Osmonds' version (and any other versions). One editor and I discussed cover arts of existing versions at another FFD discussion. There, both of us agreed that amount of cover arts (and other kind of identifiers) should be very minimal at best, or so I summarized differently(?). George Ho (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Concur with Aspects - JGabbard (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

December 12

Bedtime Stories (Madonna album)

[edit]

File:Bedtime Stories Madonna.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Bedtime Stories Madonna album upturned variant.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The history and upload logs of one of file pages show attempts to replace one variant with another variant of the same image of Madonna on her album Bedtime Stories. I'm taking both variants here to decide whether to keep one or both. Normally, duplicates are discouraged per WP:NFCC#3a, and both variants are no different from each other. However, enforcing the "minimal number of items" criterion (#3a), "contextual significance" (#8), and all other NFC criteria may not be easy when variants have been switched back and forth. Furthermore, unless I stand corrected, one of variants was uploaded separately but then immediately removed.

I thought about switching back to the variant showing Madonna in an upturned (i.e upside-down) view, replacing the other in a normal (right side up) view. The upturned view variant has been used as a lead image of the article for a long while. It also was commonly used for 1990s pressings of the album primarily to American customers. However, the normal (right side up) variant has been also distributed worldwide, including one of earliest US pressings and digital/streaming editions. I can see the case of keeping the normal (right side up) variant because it's been standard for years, especially outside the US. However, the upturned variant can be also seen in many eBay listings of the album.

Regarding criterion #3a, the variants' significant information may or may not be equivalent. However, readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching. WP:NFC#Number of items, while reading it, normally prefers one file providing multiple points of understanding the subject to multiple files providing fewer points each, but it has also neither encouraged nor discouraged deletion of any image.

Switching variants back and forth cyclically may have implicitly harmed the understanding and would either deprive readers from understanding the distribution and marketing conveyed by the cover variants. Then I have wondered whether eliminating the upturned (mostly 1990s) variant would have deprived American readers from recognizing the album well. I have also wondered whether eliminating the normal (right side up) variant must have deprived most readers from recognizing the album well. Indeed, I really thought that captions are adequate to prevent others from replacing one variant with another. However, as I figured, captions may not have prevented further changes and switches.

(tl;dr) In short, two variants have been replacing each other over and over. Now is the time for consensus to decide whether keeping either variant or both variants complies with this project's standards of fair use content. If wide distribution is the standard, then we should keep the normal (right side up) variant used for most releases and ditch the upturned (upside-down) variant. However, if the upturned variant is too significant to delete, then the upturned variant shall be kept. However, if no agreement to keep either variant is made, then how about keeping both variants shall be kept by default? George Ho (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 10:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Are we seriously arguing this again after almost 10 years? That archived talk sums it up perfectly: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", and "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given that the image here is the same except that the photo is upside-down, it seems like a reasonable argument that the second image is not necessary. Readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching I don't even want to address how silly and unencyclopedic this statement is. It's the exact same image (plus I don't think the casual reader will care and, if by some weird coincidence they do, they can just google it)! This cover is used on nearly all digital and streaming platforms (Spotify, YouTube, apple iTunes); and I speak for experience when I say it's the one most retails stores carry here in Europe. I'm sure @George Ho: has the best intentions, but that second image is completely unnecessary and should be deleted.--Christian (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Christian, you attempted to replace the upturned variant back in 2018 with the normal (right side up) one that you mentioned is used in digital and streaming platforms, but then it was immediately reverted back to the upturned one. Seems that you have been fortunate that the editor who reverted your move has been inactive for at least one year. Unlike that editor, I couldn't revert back to the upturned variant, recognizing how widely distributed the normal/right-side-up variant has been, especially at ongoing digital age.

However, as said before, the upturned variant was commonly used in most of physical American editions before the (golden?) streaming age. I had a cassette copy that uses the upturned variant. As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed. [See my further comment below my sig. George Ho (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)]

Overseas customers have been fortunate to receive the normal/standard variant, and earliest American customers must have been fortunate to buy earliest American copies using the normal/standard one. Today's streaming customers have been fortunate to see the normal variant. On the other hand, how Americans have been fortunate or unfortunate to buy copies showing the upturned variant would be up to them. Well, both variants posit Madonna's name on top and album title on bottom, but they posit the same image in different ways... and may have given different meanings. Let's not underestimate the album cover's (or album covers') influence to customers.

As I see, you brought up the discussion from 2009–10. Hate to say this, but the past discussion is mere local consensus, which I believe should neither overturn FFD consensus nor undermine the process of FFD. Unless the FFD discussion would be the same as that past discussion, if this FFD discussion gets relisted, then... as proven, the local discussion may no longer hold up anymore. By the way, at the time of that discussion, the upturned variant (link from that discussion) was the lead, and the normal variant uploaded as an alternative cover was taken out. (Off-topic: The person who removed the one that you favor keeping has been banned since 2013.) As proven to my point, one side favors one variant, and another side favors the other. George Ho (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed.
— written by me

I may likely take most of those back. Both variants show Madonna lying on a bed and giving posture with eyes open. However, despite using same image in different positions, the positions of the singer's name and the album title may have given both variants either the same or different meanings of the album (or album cover). However, I can't tell whether the meanings of the variants are the same.

As I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them. George Ho (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them This is 100% your opinion George Ho, it's not a good arguement to keep both images. But like I previously said on the (IMO, pointless) Like a Prayer single cover debate, I don't really care which image is used. Kind regards! --Christian (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Only the normal variant of the cover should be shown on the article, as it is unnecessary to show an alternate non-free album cover that is identical to the normal cover but upturned. The k nine 2 (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion about the Madame X cover where eventually the alternate deluxe cover was deleted as it was deemed unnecessary, hence I support deleting the alternate upturned cover. The k nine 2 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You were meant to link Talk:Madame X (album)#One cover Vs two covers?, right? George Ho (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes apologies I messed up the link. I have fixed the link now. The k nine 2 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the alternate upturned cover. The current main cover is the one used for most releases outside the US. All the digital/streaming versions (including US iTunes/Apple) also use it, hence the vast majority of the world is more familiar with it. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

December 11

File:Rock Lake bathymetric map.pdf

[edit]

File:Rock Lake bathymetric map.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zhhuangj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Rock Lake Bathymetric map.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zhhuangj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Map by the State of Wisconsin, incorrectly tagged as federal government works. Since the map was made in 1955, and doesn't appear to carry a copyright notice, maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} could apply? Wikiacc () 03:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

File:The dawn patrol.jpg

[edit]

File:The dawn patrol.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot of a 1930 US-made film, whose attribution to the US government seems confused (the US Library of Congress may hold a print but it certainly didn't make the film). Perhaps there is a valid reason for public domain (no copyright notice, copyright not renewed, etc.) but until we have evidence for that, I suggest delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc () 04:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I can find is Movie stills and publicity photos which has 9 photographic prints of Let Us Be Gay, MGM, 1930; The Talker, First National Pictures 1923; McFadden's Flats, First National Pictures, 1927; The Four Flusher, Universal Jewel, 1923; Dawn Patrol, First National and Vitaphone, 1930; Sweethearts on Parade 1930; and two unidentified productions. Alos includes publicity photo of John Mack Brown. Rights advisory: Rights status of individual images not evaluated. I think the image does help the reader to better grasp the subject so relicensing as non-free seems fair to me if there's no policy that explicitly forbids that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's a policy that explicitly forbids that. Someone just needs to write up the rationale. Wikiacc () 01:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Plutodog.gif

[edit]

File:Plutodog.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muchi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC: Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder

No proof this was published by Disney or with their permission. No proof it's official either. Or what year it's from. According to User:Tbhotch, Wikipedia:Verifiability goes right out of the window when it comes to fair use media and they suggested I take this to FFD. I'm disappointed.

Another image is available for the article, but I don't oppose someone uploading a prettier image if it's properly sourced. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Replace with anything but this. The design is outdated (it's from the Mickey Mouse Works-era), and it was published by Disney most likely as a promotional picture (even if this was a fan-made version of Pluto, there is nothing significantly different from the Disney's official design of Pluto for the series Mickey Mouse Works to consider it a derivative work). (CC) Tbhotch 20:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The design is outdated
Big deal. The article is about Pluto and the image should be representative. You shouldn't use screenshots from, for example, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse as those wouldn't be representative. For Donald Duck, his depiction in DuckTales (2017 TV series) is very much not outdated, but it isn't representative for his look throughout most of his career. I can barely believe you are actually claiming it wouldn't matter if Plutodog.gif would turn out to be fan art. Let's allow forgeries of classic paintings if they look nicer: who could tell the difference anyway? If you want a nicer picture, find one with a proper source. Your sharetv.com link may well be an example of WP:REFLOOP, at any rate, sharetv.com is a wiki. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please, go and tell that to anyone who cares. (CC) Tbhotch 02:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Fix citation and keep- This seems to be the original publication, and Mickey Mouse Works seems to be the origin of the image. The image captures the character's modern image well enough, as Pluto has not changed drastically since the 90s, unlike someone like Daisy Duck. It is also likely that this is Disney clip-art that they use for multiple forms of media for around a decade at a time. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@(Oinkers42): Sharetv.com is a wiki. I see no indication that Disney would have an account there or uploaded that image. Most of the text on that sharetv.com link has been borrowed from Wikipedia (without attribution as far as I can tell) so that should tell you what their standards are. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Tbhotch's suggestion to "take it to WP:FFD" combined with Twinkle's interface confused me, but this file was very much eligible for WP:CSD#F4 {{Di-no source}}. I'm asking the closing admin to take that into account. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

December 10

Like a Prayer (song)

[edit]

File:Madonna - Like a Prayer (single).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chrishm21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Madonna - Like a Prayer 12-inch single.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The cover arts were originally uploaded under JPEG format. Then they were switched to PNG. Then the 7-inch release was favored over 12-inch one, but then the switch to 12-inch occurred last year under same filename for this reason: Replace with 12" single cover; it is explicitly mentioned on the article. Recently, I uploaded the 12-inch release separate from the 7-inch one. I'm taking them both here, so we can decide whether to keep one or both. Normally, WP:NFCC#3a ("Minimal number of items") would discourage using more than one cover art that would provide similar significant information. However, I'm uncertain whether the covers provide the same info.

If an extra cover is unnecessary, then I would lean toward the 7-inch artwork, which uses the live-action image of Madonna. As I found out, the 7-inch artwork was also used for CD and cassette releases. In other words, the image was widely used for 7-inch vinyl, CD and cassette formats. And even CD and cassette became more popular than vinyl. Anyone else. The other artwork (drawing by Madonna's brother), used for most 12-inch releases, may or may not help much, depending on how this discussion goes. However, I think eliminating the 7-inch/CD artwork would not help readers recognize the single release well. Furthermore, the drawing and the live-action image are not similar to each other, and the live-action image depicts the singer more accurately.

Sure, the 12-inch cover art is explicitly mentioned at the "Composition" section to this date, referring to her troubled marriage with and divorce from Sean Penn. However, the description of the artwork is brief in two sentence. I appreciate the drawing made by Madonna's brother and its reference to Penn, but I suspect readers can already understand description of the letter "P" detached from "MLVC" without displaying the drawing... unless I stand corrected? Furthermore, I'm uncertain whether, per WP:NFCC#8, the 12-inch artwork itself improves the understanding of the song, the article subject. If it does, then I'm mistaken.

(tl;dr) In conclusion, I'm worried about how well understood the criterion #3a is as well as #8 in this case. If using more than one cover goes against standards, then let's use the standard (live-action) artwork and ditch the "MLVC" drawing then. On the other hand, if no agreement to keep either cover art is made, and if deleting the 12-inch artwork is found to harm the understanding, how about keeping them both by default then? George Ho (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @George Ho: how are you? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue nor care about which image is used or removed, or if you want to use both, as I'm not that active here on en.wiki anymore. I do, however, favor using .png images as that definition and quality is superior than .jpg Cheers!--Christian (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

December 9

File:Seventeen - Semicolon.png

[edit]

File:Seventeen - Semicolon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ss112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This cover art contains plain black background with the EP/album title "semicolon" in spelled-out format appearing twice and circling around the big punctuation format (;). The band's name and "Special Album" appear between one of two spaces of the spelled-out duplicates. Furthermore, the punctuation and the spelled-out term itself sit next to each other at lower-left corner in small size. I think this image is ineligible for copyright in the US (c:COM:TOO US). However, I'm uncertain whether South Korean copyright (c:COM:TOO South Korea) would find the cover art original enough. Korean logos displaying human expressions are disallowed at Commons. This may or may not be an exception. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This definitely passes TOO in South Korea. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm well aware of the "too simple to be copyrighted" feature making artworks ineligible for copyright in the US, and if I thought it were too simple, I would've exported it to Commons already, as I have done with File:Matmos - The Consuming Flame - Open Exercises in Group Form.png and did yesterday with File:Rival Consoles - Night Melody.png. However, as the text is arranged in a circular fashion and not just simple text printed horizontally, I am not convinced it meets that here. If it's found to be too simple, I can easily export it. It's really not a big deal. Also, George, I'm very aware it's only the digital cover. I used to add a caption like this to each K-pop album image I uploaded too, until I had the user Koavf hound me over it at Self-Portrait (EP) and Bloom*Iz (among others), and tell me that this claim needed to be sourced, even though for every other aspect of an album, like its track listing and credits, Koavf would repeatedly tell users it did not need an external source because "the album itself is the source for this material". (Then again, Koavf was not particularly known to be very consistent with his behaviour when he would hound users like myself, because the hounding was clearly primarily just done to annoy.) Ss112 01:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    Koavf is currently blocked indefinitely, and I'm reading his article. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    @George Ho: I know he is. That's not particularly of consequence here. I'm simply explaining to you why I didn't add the caption myself, and that users, for whatever reason, evidently have objections to things like this. Ss112 02:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

December 8

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg

[edit]

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LBM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "George (1956–1958)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. One logo with the lion gives a good visual depiction of what the logos looked like; it is not necessary to have all of them when the changes in them were relatively minor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The article that the logo is displayed in discusses the specific lions that were featured in the logos over the years. One logo with a different lion would not serve the purpose that this logo does. There is sourced discussion of George, the lion featured in this specific logo, which means it meets NFCC 8. Another MGM lion logo would not be depicting George, so one item cannot convey equivalent significant information, meaning NFCC 3a is met.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - NFCC 8 is met. As for 3a, it's also met because they enhance the reader's understanding of the prose present in the article. The other lions up in the Aug 14 FFD debacle were also kept. schetm (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, because if you delete this one then this one will be the only lion not to have a picture on Wikipedia. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting disscussions says,

That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

This seems to me one of said substitutes. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

File:2015 NRL Logo.png

[edit]

File:2015 NRL Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CodyCruickshank (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in National Rugby League. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The use in the other article is used as the primary means of visual identification, but I'm not sure if every season's logo can be added to every seasons' article. Jonteemil (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Remove from National Rugby League#2010–present: Establishment of the ARLC. This particular use fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite-4) as posted about by Jonteemil. The file is also missing a non-free use rationale for this particular use, which means that the file is going to be removed at some point probably sooner than later by a WP:BOT if no rationale for this use is added to the file's page.
    Possible keep in an individual season article if can be detrmined when the logo was first used. The file's other use in 2015 NRL season is a bit more difficult to assess. Sometimes a former non-free logo like this has been allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI when it's used for primary identification purposes (i.e. as the main infobox image) in a stand-alone article about the season in which the organization changed its branding, but the connection between this logo and the 2015 NRL season is unclear and thus a problem per WP:NFCC. The file's name, the date it was uploaded, and the description given in the rationale indicate that it was used in 2015, but there's nothing to indicate that this was the first season the logo was used. The caption for file in the main article states "NRL logo used from late 2012 until 2018." There are individual articles for 2012, 2013, and 2014 NRL seasons, but this logo is not being used in them; therfore, it's not clear why the file is being used the 2015 NRL season article and not in any of them.
    If the logo was changed in late 2012 (as the aforementioned caption states) and the typical NRL season runs from March to September, then that would seem to mean that the 2013 NRL season (not the 2015 season) was the first time the logo was officially used in league play. According to National Rugby League#1998–2002: Rationalisation, Telstra started sponsoring the league in 2001. Both the 2007 NRL season and 2008 NRL season show a different logo was used than the one being discussed. It's likely that the NRL and Telstra changed the logo a couple of times over the years; so, the thing to figure out is when the change to this logo actually happened and then see if any sourced commentary about it can be found. There's no way to know whether the caption for the file in the main NRL article is correct since it's unsourced and there's nothing about the logo or branding change at all in the relevant section. So, if the season for which this logo was first used can be determined, then I could see using it in that article; if not, then I think it should also be removed from the 2015 season article as well, which means the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove from all unless rationale is completed (two fields are currently marked "n.a."; all of those are always applicable.) Remove regardless from any articles except the one about the organization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg

[edit]

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Leonard Cohen, The Partisan, 1968 - 28.5 second excerpt of English transition to French.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally nominated for deletion as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "The article only uses this for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation, which can be portrayed by text alone." Both were disputed on the files' respective talk pages. Listing here for further discussion as a neutral party. Pinging Fred Gandt and Buidhe. ƏXPLICIT 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The current fair use rationale is, "Anna Marly's original version of this song is starkly different than Cohen's, the version that is most well known. To properly understand how Hy Zaret's interpretation altered the song, the excerpt is of a particularly significant verse compared by sources, which will feature in the article along with an excerpt of Cohen's version for reader comparison, while reading the sourced textual comparison." If there is any musical, contextual value based on sourced commentary, it needs to have that on both the file description and in the article. Otherwise this should be delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's currently 3:30am for me, and I am heading to sleep very shortly: Anna Marly didn't record her performance until 1963 (around 20 years after live performance on the radio and subsequent publication as sheet music) and whilst much has been said about Cohen's version, little has been said about Marly's, with most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts. I have included as much relevant sourced discussion of the musical style Marly and Cohen applied to their respective performances as seemed appropriate in the article, but am limited in what can be said about Marly's, as the only recording is somewhat out of time from most source's focus; Marly's recording stands more as an example of what would have been heard 20 years earlier on the radio, with few sources having anything to say about it, because they're more often talking about the broadcasts 20 years hence.
I applied a great deal of effort to avoid cruft and original research while working on the improvements to the article (every statement is sourced, most sources are high quality, and almost nothing is relatively trivial) and may have previously dismissed, as useless or from a poor source, some further discussion of the style Marly applied in her performances and recording, and request some time (at least a few days) to go through all my research again.
I must also request that if the greater concern regarding the fair use of these excerpts is how they're documented (how I filled out the declaration) and not their application, please simply correct the documentation; this is a collaborative project after all, and although I tried my best, if improvements can or must be made, I welcome them. [I]t needs to have that on both the file description and in the article strikes me as a problem with the declaration more than with the files' use or existance; please help correct the issue instead of calling for deletion for technical reasons. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If, as you say, most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts, that would indicate that the musical qualities are not as significant and that text alone could convey the same information. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It should come as no surprise that a song with words written by one of the most prominent members of the French Resistance, composed and mostly broadcast during World War II, with a subject matter entirely about the circumstances of the time, should have most interest in it be focussed on the circumstances and message of the words. For sources to deconstruct the sound of the recording (as an example of the live broadcast performances) would be to trivialize the importance of the song. Much has been said about Cohen's musical interpretation of Zaret's adaptation, because it is fundamentally a pop song, and the musicality of pop songs is respectively a lot less trivial. The article contains sourced commentary about Cohen's sound, because sources consider the weight of the musicality to be high enough to discuss, but I am not at all surprised that sources don't go into detail about Marley's musicality much (although, as said, I will reexamine this) as it was far from what would normally be called a pop song, and its message and raison d'etre are rightly given far greater weight. This state of one version being considered differently than the other by the sources that examine the songs, and to an understandable degree, that the sources are themselves quite different in nature, does not change the fact that both are musical, and by that measure, substantially different. Many sources compare Cohen's to Marly's versions, demonstrating a wide interest in how they differ; the difference between the songs is clearly considered important by those who've examined them, but it should be expected that whilst Cohen's is discussed as a pop song, Marly's is not.
A significant problem I personally had and have in fleshing out the article, is that a vast amount of the sources that might be useful for Anna Marly are in the French language, and although Google Translate helps with some I found online, there are many books, including one I bought for research, that I cannot translate; there may be vast amounts of information about Marly's musicality in the book stacked only metres away from me, but I can't understand it. I did reach out for help, but was quite disappointed by the far from enthusiastic response. Even more difficult to understand/translate for me, are the multiple radio broadcasts still available to listen to online, that are also in the French language; this for example was easy to find, appears to be focussed on her musicality and role in the Resistance, and is entirely in the French language, so I have almost no idea what is being said.
I will need time to see what I can find, but strongly disagree that any further information about her musicality is required to satisfy the requirements for fair use of these excerpts. I wasn't flippant in my uploading of the excerpts, and am sure the points of WP:NFCCP are satisfied; please confirm if it is only point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" that you're concerned about? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In case you missed it @Buidhe:, could you please answer my question above? Cheers.
I have found some references with more specific focus on Marly's musicality, including a German university resource (luckily in English) which directly states exactly what the comparable excerpts are intended to demonstrate: "The melody and chord structure is considerably different from the original."[1] Another article with a focus on acoustic guitar states Cohen "re-worked" the song,[2] but there's really not much else, so it's a bit junky, and a reference already in use (the Independent obit.) mentions "she learnt to play with feeling and invention"[3] which is also a bit lame with this discussion's specific regard IMO.
Please continue to bear with me while I work on this. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)
  2. ^ acousticguitar.com
  3. ^ the Independent Marly obit.

I don't find any of this convincing so far. Contextual significance is not met if there is only brief mentions of aspects of the song that are not lyrics, because it has to significantly increase understanding. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How would a reader understand that the by far most well known version is significantly different to the original it is based on, in more ways than just the language, without describing that difference? They clearly wouldn't, which would be a disservice to the readers and actually misleading. Without making clear that the version widely acknowledged as definitive is musically unlike the original, no reader could be expected to guess. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't add anything more to my side of this dispute; it's sadly not a discussion. It was never the intention that [t]he article only uses [these two files] for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation; honestly there would be little point to that beyond some kind of "told ya so" demonstration of the facts as described in the nearby text. The files were always intended to enlighten readers to the huge difference in sound/texture/feeling "musicality" (I dunno) that became the effective default after Cohen's Zaret's, compared with the true original. The musicality of Marly and Cohen (in particular) are (and were before my recent addition of extra details) discussed as and where appropriate, to what degree is reasonable and within the scope of what good sources are currently available; Marly's artistic talents, including her guitar playing and whistling are described where fitting, and the musicality of Cohen's cover is discussed to a greater degree, also where fitting. This dispute did help to highlight that the article was lacking sourced textual discussion of that difference, but I have (at least to a fair degree) solved that omission. Thanks to Explicit (talk · contribs) for recognising that the files' use is linked and listing them here together. I can see no way that the use of these files, in the capacity they are currently used, is a violation of fair use, or any current alternative way to make clear how utterly different the original is to everything post-Zaret. I was about to go on, and on, but I feel as if I'm barking at a wall, so that's that unless some discussion or a decision is forthcoming. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like we have a consensus right here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both. It seems there is "sourced commentary" on the music, but not very much. However the musical differences seem to me very considerable (by my listening to the clips) and the reason that the lyrics are remarked on more than the music is likely to be that books can't address the musical aspects without using technical commentary that may be inaccessible to the reader. The lyrics can be directly discussed in words. My understanding of the musical differences is significantly (indeed greatly) increased by the clips in a way that would not (for me) be possible with textual discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Several Images of mass shooters

[edit]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The use of fair use images of mass shooters who are not notable enough to support their own articles fails WP:NFCC#8. Similar deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 5#File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg have all resulted in delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The nominator made zero notifications about this discussion as required by WP:FFD: The uploaders of the file were not nominated, deteleable file captions were not added to the files in use in articles, no article talk page notifications and no related WikiProject notifications were made. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the four images listed above by Aspects. There does appear to be enough coverage of the individuals in question to warrant a stand alone article be written about them. Ideally that would seem to be the best thing to do, but perhaps for editorial reasons the relevant content has not been WP:SPLIT off into separate articles about each person. If someday individual articles are created, then the image should be removed from the corresponding event articles. Delete the remaining images for essentially the same rationale. The physical appearance of none of the individuals involved seem to be relevant to the actual event or seem to be something that actually requires the reader see a non-free image to understand what is written about the events. Three of the photos are being used in the main infobox of the event article (101 California Street shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids mass murder and Hartford Distributors shooting) which is not appropriate at all for such an article. The other photos are used in "Perpetrator" type of sections which really don't require a non-free image to be used any more than a "Victims" section would require non-free images of individual victims to be used. Moreover, some of the photos have nothing to do with the event at all and were taken years prior to the event which makes their contextual relevance per WP:NFC#CS even more suspect. Out of the remaing photos, File:Clarence Bertucci.png and File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg might be possible to convert to WP:PD (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}), either because of their age and lack of copyright notice or because real provenance since it seems unlikely either of the sources cited for those images are the original sources of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the surveillance screenshot of the perpetrator with a gun as lead image of 2019 El Paso shooting. Even as an offensive material, it's still encyclopedic. Furthermore, it well illustrates the topic and the perpetrator's involvement. Deleting the image would deprive readers from primarily visualizing his involvement in the Walmart incident.

    On the other hand, delete image of Micah Xavier Johnson from 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. The split proposal failed (Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section), and I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image, no matter how large or enormous the "Perpetrator" section is. His ethnicity/race is briefly described. The article is more about one event than about the perpetrator himself. Deleting the image wouldn't affect how the article can adequately tell readers about the whole event.

    For the same rationale above, also delete the one used at 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers#Perpetrator, which merely illustrates the perpetrator's appearance in a video.

    Also, delete all others, including (especially) File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg, whose appearances wouldn't impact the understanding of the tragic 1984 massacre and all other incidents. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep all images: "Not notable enough to support their own articles"? OK, (1) WP:NFCC#8 doesn't bring up anything about people that are or are not the main subject of the article. (2) Most of these "shooting of" or "death of" articles involve the killers and those that died being the starring roles in these stories, which is why they satisfy the "Contextual significance" part if anything. Simply put, invalid deletion nomination with rationale that misreads non-free policy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Even with the lettering of the policy, per WP:NFCCEG, the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording, matters as well. Also, WP:NFC#CS clarifies the meaning of criterion #8. I don't see how, except the surveillance screenshot, all biographical-looking images comply with the spirit of the policy (or policy's spirit?). The images are merely there to show readers visual appearance of the perpetrators, but I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events, especially when stand-alone articles of the perpetrators haven't yet existed. NFCC guarantees allowance of non-free content, but even following the NFCC doesn't prevent those images from failing to be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used.

    To put this another way, free content has been always expected to provide adequate information about article subjects, but non-free content can be allowed if most likely free content isn't adequate enough. Sadly, in this case, I fail to see how those images qualify as "allowable" per rules, and I fail to see how free (text) content (about a tragic event, most likely) is inadequate. Furthermore, many other images of other perpetrators have been deleted, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used... or deleted into question. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

    "I'm not confident that showing mere appearances of perpetrators have improved the understanding (if not identification) of those tragic events" I'll tell you how they do; those articles aren't only about those tragic events; the parts around them and combine them together are major topics as well; it's just the tragedy is the primary topic and what the article is named after.
    "many other images of other perpetrators, and keeping those images would put the consistency of how the images are strictly used." (1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (2) They probably shouldn't have been deleted if they're like the ones in this discussion. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    To me, open/free content already suffices, and a tragic event is already tragic enough while reading open content. I don't think a non-free image of a perpetrator would make any difference to how I can understand a tragic event. I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events. Almost every "Perpetrator" section (or similar) already tells me and most other readers as much about a perpetrator as it could/can. The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary). How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted? Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    "I also don't think most readers would be affected by removal of non-free perpetrator images from articles about the events".... Wuuuuuuuuut??????? With all due respect, I don't think you're most readers, then. The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.
    "The open-content articles already tell me about the events, and the articles would make non-free content less than necessary (if not unnecessary)." Double Wuuuuuuuut??????? George, text alone doesn't do a good job of presenting the full picture. That's why we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.
    "How would a non-free image of that perpetrator be too significant (in any way) to be deleted?" You've clearly never heard of things that speak for themselves. He's the effin perpetrator! You know, the cause of the tragic event the article is about. That alone makes it too significant for deletion.
    "Why do you think deletion/removal of the non-free images would impact the understanding of events that are already tragic and sections about perpetrators, especially by reading the open-content articles?" This should go without saying; text can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

    The perpetrator is the one that caused the tragic event; of course readers would want to know what he looks like so they know another major piece of the subject.

    That would be true for non-free images that are used in existing biographical articles of perpetrators, who I predict will have been (already?) condemned or resented for their crimes for years and years (if not centuries or millennia). That would be also true for a perpetrator image that is either licensed as free (to share, distribute, commercialize, and use) or released into public domain, like the one at Orlando nightclub shooting#Perpetrator and a biographical article about him. No matter how you argue, I'm still remain unconvinced that a non-free image of the perpetrator is needed for a tragic incident article, but a free image may be more suitable if found.

    we have media and photos on this website, to give users the best picture of the subject.

    "best picture" is not the same as a more allowable, appropriate, and suitable image, and even a "best picture" may not meet the project's standards and would be potentially deleted.

    text can't make clear everything to the reader, no matter how "open-content" it is. There's just thing that the reader can only get by looking at visuals of the event. Understanding the topic would be more difficult without them.

    You may have a point about text and visuals of the event and the difference between them. However... well, if I want to provide direct visual of the incident, either I have to use the least offensive but suitable image of the incident that occurred, or if I use an offensive image, I must prove the usage as "encyclopedic" and follow the "principle of least astonishment" (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). Otherwise, I think omission of an image (in a lead or anywhere else in the article) would be most suitable status quo... right until a more suitable image of the incident is found. Also, a perpetrator and an event can be... well... related but are not similar to each other physically and obviously. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Due to lack of clear consensus. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Mysticair667537 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Mysticair667537: I undid your NAC closure/withdrawal. Please be patient with an upcoming decision by an admin, who has tools to delete any one of them. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be a certain amount of overzealousness here. Properly tagged fair use images are not a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    You meant, "keep all", or which ones? George Ho (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't got time to debate them all individually, but was notified because I uploaded Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg. Personally, I'm not seeing a huge WP:NFCC problem here, and this image seems to have survived previous debates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg

[edit]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per the very detailed fair use rationale on the image description page - that should cover the nom's concerns. schetm (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's the article content which the non-free use should reflect, not what's written in the nfur. This file is being used in three articles and the problem with this nomination is that it's not clear whether only some or all of those uses are problems, and I think it's important to asses each use separately. History of BBC television idents has 25 non-free files being used in it, which I think is the most of any current article. To me it seems like a sort of a "discography for BBC news indents" with lots of redundant content that can be found in individual articles. To problem with non-free files being used in multiple articles is that not all the uses are equivalent so just !voting delete or keep without specifying which uses implies that all the uses are equivalent. There's nothing in relevant policy that states that a file can only be used in one article or one time; policy does, however, require us to minimize non-free use as much as we can and that might be something worth discussing with respect to not only this file, but all the files used in the ident history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It might not be, but your original post doesn't distinguish between the different uses in different articles; this is another problem with the kind of mass nomination of files that you did. It's not clear whether you're suggesting that all of the file's non-free uses aren't compliant or just some aren't compliant. For example, the use in BBC Two '1991–2001' idents might actually be OK since the article itself seems to be particularly about this former ident or the series of idents it was part of, i.e. it's used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in a sense; so, that's not really a case of WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The uses in the other two articles are not so clear, but the one in BBC 2#Presentation seems like it could be OK depending how redundant you think the content in that section is to the 1991-2001 history article. The use in the more broader BBC indent history, on the other hand, article seems unnecessary in my opinion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Anyway, the point is that this is a file with three uses and some of these uses might be OK. This makes this particular discussion a bit more complex than perhaps some of the other files you nominated and thus this file shouldn't have been bunched in with all the others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Overwatch loot box.gif

[edit]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as the article talks about the loot box as a general idea which is not specific to Blizzard's Overwatch. It is entirely possible to create a free equivalent serving the same encyclopedic purpose. Wcam (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep While the general concept of a loot box (where this is being used, a box that dumps out random game items) could easily be recreated via a free approach, it is the animation and the visual elements that are used in Overwatch's implementation of the loot box opening, which are designed to create anticipation and thus part of a psychological effect (and thus why they are compared to gambling) that is discussed in depth in the article, which would be nearly impossible to recreate appropriately within that free image that this particular non-free is capturing (including why this is animated). Otherwise reduced to meet all possible NFC metrics. --Masem (t) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless you volunteer to create said free equivalent, I do not believe it should be deleted. That is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete First, I do not know whether the repeated "explosion" of the box is what appears in the game or whether the opening of a loot box is shown as a single explosion. If, in the game, the effect is repeated then this file fails WP:NFCC#3b because the extent of use is not minimal: a single showing would suffice. If the game shows the effect once then WP:NFCC#5 is failed because the image is misleading (and promotional) and so not encyclopedic. At least for this reader the image and article fails to explain what a loot box appears to look like and so WP:NFCC#8 is failed because the image seemingly could be removed without reducing understanding. Thincat (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is a gif image, set to repeat, that's not violating any NFC allowances. (If it were a gif image that included the cycle multiple times in a single loop, that would be a problem). And "loot box" as a term is pretty clear that the object is going to be a box - and the article gives other ideas like loot crate right at the top - so its clear that the gif starts with a "loot box" for the game. In addition, it is the animations associated with that opening that are subject of discussion in the article that meet NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 01:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep As others have said, I don't think creating a free equivalent is plausible. Loot boxes, almost by definition, are ways of generating revenue, so I really think it's very unlikely that there will be a comparable gif/image from a free source. Moreover the gif in question is a very small part of the overall work and is fairly transformative (see WP:NFCC#3). I also think its a pretty on-the-nose depiction of the subject article. There's also no way this is occupying any commercial space, in my opinion (see WP:NFCC#2). This seems to pretty clearly meet the NFCC to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete replaceable, as it is possible to create a generic loot box animation that fulfills the encyclopedic purpose. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue in play is that there is a psychological component (discussed in article text) to these animations that I'm sure Blizzard (developers of OW) have studied or evaluated to make these animations alluring, and that facet is something that a freely created image of a loot box opening would not be able to capture because we don't have this same knowledge of what Blizzard (or other companies) have been able to discover to make the loot box process alluring. If the extent of the article were merely discussing "Here's a loot box, you open it and get stuff" and nothing about the psychological effects, I wouldn't even have a picture to show that, text is sufficient for that. But the whole mess around loot boxes is their psychological impact towards additive behavior, and these animations are specifically tuned towards that, something we simply can't recreate through a free image. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep For the same reasons as above. There is almost certainly no free equivalent that fulfils the same encyclopedic purpose. It is technically possible to create a free equivalent, but there's a significant skill barrier to doing it. Lots of things are technically possible that aren't necessarily going to happen, e.g. if there were only non-free pictures of the surface of Mars, then it might be technically possible to create a free equivalent by either going to Mars or convincing the copyright holder to use a free licence, but in reality it's reasonable to assume that it's not going to happen. Practically, if this gif were deleted then there would be no replacement. If a free equivalent is eventually created then it should be used instead, but the meantime I think this gif should remain. Neckstells (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replaceable by a free image that could be created. It does not matter that the creation might be hard, or the free image might be "worse". That's part of being a free encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nowhere NEAR the same unless someone from one of those bigjob companies told us what makes it so suspenseful and alluring. So Keep it!! — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfree use rationale is incomplete (one field is marked "n.a."). Even if completed, it is replaceable by a free animation made by an editor, so fails NFCC#1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, this is not true. Loot box opening animations are (as described in the article) carefully designed to encourage more loot box purchasing. This is an effect that a free version could never readily capture the art and animation and time and effort that Blizzard put into this aspect. (Also, that part of rationale is not a required field - its a required consideration to meet NFCC but it is not required to be spelled out in the rationale per NFCC) --Masem (t) 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have mentioned, there is more to a loot box than a simple animation of a crate opening (which a free version could be reasonably recreated). Rather, there is a substantial psychological component to the creation of loot boxes that draws heavily on the psychology that drives the creation of gambling devices such as slot machines. I originally started writing this comment with the intention of expressing "keep", but as I was looking for references to support the argument about the importance the psychological factors to the gif I came across an open source program (MIT license) that has been used to generate loot boxes with varying parameters for academic studies about the salient psychological components. The creator has a YouTube video showing various parameters already - a suitable, free animated gif could probably be made pretty easily (and perhaps the selected part of the video could be cross-referenced with the academic paper). Here are the links: paper, github repository, and youtube video. I think having an animated gif on this article is important, but the raw material for a suitable, free animation seems to exist already. (P.S. It's been many years since I edited Wikipedia so apologies if I messed up anything in this comment.) Douglas Whitaker (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The video can't work because it is not uploaded with the right permissions (no explicit CC license), but the github repository is MIT License *and* the paper (from what I can see, the paper's behind a paywall) was designed to explore effects so yes, this actually a fair free representation due to the fact that the effects were part of the study. So its going to be a matter of compiling and capturing the program to make a new gif at this point. --Masem (t) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Might it be worth reaching out to the creator of the video to see if they'll license it CC-BY? If they're willing to make the source code MIT (which is quite a permissive license), they might also be willing to make the video permissively licensed as well. I skimmed the paper, and they only did a simple two factor design. The two factors were audio effects (low/high) and visual effects (low/high). The factor with evidence of an effect on number of boxes opened was audio effects (high audio effects was associated with increased box opening). Still, I think this is a promising lead. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
        • When I have time, I will create a rough storyboard, upload it to Wikipedia, and you guys comment on if you think it'll work. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 03:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not replaceable, so therefore meets NFCC #1. I suppose it wouldn't hurt if somebody wants to create a fake lootbox under a free license, but even then it fundamentally wouldn't be the same thing: it's not really a lootbox, just an artist's rendition of something like it, so it's not a one-to-one replacement. An accurate rendition of a lootbox entails, well, using a real lootbox. As Masem has noted, sourced critical commentary notes all sorts of psychological triggers and factors in subtle parts of the design, so it's a bit presemptuous to assume that a freely generated alternative is doing the same things. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cover arts of Automatic Lover (Call for Love)

[edit]

File:Automatic Lover (Call for Love) Real McCoy 2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobyjamesaus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Automatic Lover (Call for Love) Real McCoy.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobyjamesaus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Having more than one cover art is subjective, but normally it is discouraged, and this may be no exception especially to WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Preferably, I think the artwork for the 1994 release (eBay) should remain. The band was the German Eurodance band, and the song charted well in the band's home country, Germany. Of course, one would prefer either the other image or both. I don't know why having just one cover isn't enough in this case unless... it's about recognition? George Ho (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC); edited, 23:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks so much inviting me to contribute, I appreciate it. I agree that in most cases 1 cover artwork is enough. However, in my opinion, when the art work is significant different for different continents, and the song was successful across continents. Then having both cover art work helps improve the article. Many readers might be like “I know this, but the cover looked nothing like that here”.
I’m bias, because I put them there, but in my opinion, in this case, two images is appropriate. 🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talkcontribs) 23:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete 1 and keep 2 because I think 1 looks ugly. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean "delete" the cover of a man in a uniform or the cover of a man and two women frowning? George Ho (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete the man in a uniform and keep the man and two women. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete one or the other. One cover, not two, is permitted for visual identification. I do not have a strong preference on which is kept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Madonna - get together.ogg

[edit]

File:Madonna - get together.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The article "Get Together (Madonna song)" was de-listed as Good Article. Particularly, one commented that the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. I PRODded the sample for that reason, but then the uploader de-PRODded it, so I'm taking it here. Furthermore, the "Composition" section of the article, even with improvement on caption, even neither sufficiently supports the sample nor is difficult to understand without the sample. I struggle to figure out why the sample is necessary for illustration unless it's about either recognition or trying to compete with websites providing music samples, like Amazon, AllMusic, and iTunes/Apple Music. IMHO, neither mere sample recognition nor competition with third-party websites would help the sample adequately comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8). Furthermore, IMHO even references to other songs (explicit or implicit) don't make the sample necessary and significant. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The sample illustrates how the song sounds like, which is its main purpose. I doubt one can imagine how a "tripping vocal melody" sounds like without help from an audio file. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Stating a lyric and an offhand remark about the song from the Pitchfork citation, as well as limited sourced information about the composition, does not warrant the sample nor meet the criteria for WP:NFCC, as it would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
So your argument is that there isn't enough information on the composition, but deleting the audio file (which clearly adds to the understanding of the composition), would actually help somehow? Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The audio file cannot just merely identify the song or the composition, and it cannot serve as just a sample for anyone to try out and just walk away as customers do in stores. Instead, the information provided by the clip must be also too valuable or too significant for deletion and well supported and emphasized by reliable sources. The chorus clip, however, doesn't provide any info with any value or significance to the article. Rather it distracts readers from learning what the article says about the song. (My further reply below. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)) Furthermore, the caption can be suitable as prose, or maybe the caption doesn't increase understanding. Moreover, the sample also would be more suitable at a music-oriented website. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I now realize that I should have cited WP:FREER as another reason for deletion. The image may also be replaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You could never convince me that "[the clip] distracts readers from learning that the article says about the song" since it is by far the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard on Wikipedia for something to be deleted or kept and I can't actually believe it you are thinking that is a real argument. I'm almost at a loss of words. No audio can be replaced by text, no matter how well you would explain the composition, since the vast majority of people don't know music theory and it is, actually, the audio segment that proves to be the most helpful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If the clip doesn't distract, then the clip may have attracted users, especially those not willing to read the whole article but rather try out the sample themselves as if it is provided by any music website. I'm pretty sure that free text content is adequate enough, and "music theory" isn't the subject of discussion, is it? Furthermore, I don't think an audio file is necessary to identify either the critical commentary or the article subject. If any of my arguments sound ridiculous to you (or anyone else), then I don't know how else to convince you. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, per Alecsdaniel. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Cover arts of I'm Goin' Down covered by Mary J. Blige

[edit]

File:I'm Going Down.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:I'm Goin' Down by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I requested undeletion of the US cassette variant as intention to replace the square CD one. The Mary J. Blige single was released in the US commercially as a cassette single; the US customers hadn't received the CD one ([1][2]), unlike overseas customers. The cover arts use the same image, and using them both goes against WP:NFCC#3a. At first I thought about keeping either one. Preferably, I should go for the US cassette mainly to reflect what the American customers received at the time of release and the singer's nationality.

However, with recent proposals and nominations (including mine) on cover arts of artists' cover versions, and with deletions of some (if not many) cover arts of less significant (if not less successful) cover versions, I can't help feel torn about and wonder whether either one variant would also meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. Rose Royce's version charted in North America but didn't perform well (or much) there. (Modest international success is claimed, but I have trouble finding reliable sources to confirm it.) Blige's version performed probably no better either. Well, Blige's version performed either decently or modestly in the US. I don't know how to describe its British chart performance; it debuted in a Top 15 position but then dropped and dropped in weeks. It didn't fare well in another European chart. The Blige version has a music video, but that's much about it.

This all comes down to whether the critical commentary presented can strengthen the usage of either variant. Neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:Notability mentions images (unsurprisingly, I think). MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation stands firm against "decoration" and excessive usages, but that's all there is about using cover arts in song (or album) articles. If either cover art does meet WP:NFCC#8, then I guess critical commentary makes the usage of a cover art stronger. If it doesn't, then the notability of the Blige version couldn't weigh more than the original, the critical commentary isn't strong enough to guarantee a cover art, and a cover art of the Blige version wouldn't make a difference.

tl;dr: In short, I want to keep either one (preferably the US cassette variant), but I have grown torn over its compliance with "contextual significance" criterion. Nonetheless, I don't mind the results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep the cassette, it looks less faded and has a taller version of the image. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Aint Nobody.jpg

[edit]

File:Aint Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally PRODded the cover art early this year because I didn't think it would meet WP:NFCC#8. However, it was de-PRODded under an assertion that it passes NFCC and that the notability of LL Cool J's interpolation of "Ain't Nobody" wouldn't be well understood without the cover art. On the contrary, I thought a free image of the artist who did the interpolation would be adequate enough.

This cover art displays primarily the eponymous characters of Beavis and Butt-Head but as part of virtue of the branding, marketing, and identification information conveyed by the cover art. I appreciate the graphic artist and distributor's efforts, but I'm unsure whether the cover art is necessary to help me understand the original song by Rufus and Chaka Khan and the hip-hop interpolation.

I can already understand what critical commentary about the interpolation conveys without the cover art. Furthermore, I can adequately understand the interpolation's chart performance in some areas of Western Europe, upper North America, and New Zealand. Even I can already understand the hip-hop interpolation's potential notability, despite not having its own stand-alone article. I still don't understand why the notability of LL Cool J's cover version would be lost without the cover art. There have been already other cover versions since versions by Rufus and Chaka Khan, so I don't understand why the Beavis & Butt-Head cover art is necessary... unless it's merely about visual identification of the product? --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Further note: The cover art also contains song title and artist's name, but those don't ease my concerns about the cover's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. There are six notable versions of the song with seven files in use in the article, with the original version having two files. By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions, I feel that all of the files pass WP:NFCC. I also have never seen someone argue that a free picture of the artist could replace a fair use of a song/album cover in the article about the song/album, so I do not think this is a valid argument for the cover's deletion. Aspects (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Quoting Aspects: By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions[...] Actually, this is a test nomination out of cover arts of notable cover versions. For consistency, I plan to nominate other non-free cover arts afterwards if this cover art gets deleted. (File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is US-only free per another FFD discussion, so I won't touch that for now.) Regarding notability of cover versions, I commented at another FFD discussion where cover arts and notability may or may not connect well. To rephrase what I said there, using a very, very minimal amount of fair-use cover art has been strongly encouraged. The matter is not whether a cover version is notable but rather whether a cover art (or rather visual identification) is necessary and whether deleting a cover art would impact the understanding of the cover version, even when notable (and the notable original version).

    Furthermore, I'm not gonna put a free image as part of the section's infobox but rather underneath/below the infobox. In one case, after a cover art was deleted per another FFD discussion, I then added a free image of the artist at Something's Got a Hold on Me#Jessica Mauboy version... just underneath the infobox out of respect for the infobox itself. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC); forgot something, 21:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    If one example isn't enough, then what about another FFD discussion, where a section of an article no longer uses the cover art? George Ho (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg

[edit]

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Similar images using the symbols of Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (aka Led Zeppelin IV) are used at Commons, like File:Zoso-square-layout.svg and File:Zoso.svg. Local copies (File:Zzzp.JPG and File:Zzzp2.JPG) were deleted on the common assumption that those hand-drawn symbols are automatically in the PD. However, I can't be certain about its copyright status, which I shall primarily discuss.

Before transferring the vinyl's side label to Commons, we shall discuss whether the hand-drawn symbols are either no different from (i.e. inspired by or exact copies of) the symbols taken (or extracted) from centuries-old original publications or something that I find hard to describe (besides being possibly eligible for copyright). If the former, then they should be in the public domain in both countries. If the latter, then the symbols mixed with the side label must comply with both c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO UK. The logo of Edge (magazine) has been found by UK's lower court to be original enough for copyright, setting the standard bar very low and causing other UK logos to no longer be eligible. If this image is to be deemed ineligible for Commons, then other images of those symbols will be affected. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the image is to demonstrate that the "four symbols" was the actual title of the album as marketed by Atlantic at the time. The other images only show what the images are. This does not help the reader at all. SethWhales talk 06:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
What about the copyright status of the side label? I can assume that you view the image as non-free in the US, right? George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. 100% non-free. SethWhales talk 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I would keep File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg and File:Zoso.svg. Delete File:Zoso-square-layout.svg, as it is just a square layout and not even what was printed on the... is that a vinyl or a cd? — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@WinnerWolf99: File:Zoso.svg and File:Zoso-square-layout.svg are at Commons right now, but I'll undelete the local copies of those files (if they available) once we're done with the vinyl label then. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

December 7

File:Gorgo 1961.jpg

[edit]

File:Gorgo 1961.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alan Smithee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

commons:File:Gorgo 1961.jpg claims that this is PD due to lack of a copyright notice, and there is a larger version of the same on Commons so the local file can simply be deleted if it's PD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • If you can tell me what PD is, I might be able to make a desicion. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 00:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    @WinnerWolf99: Sorry, public domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Then, I think that no copyright notice was meant to imply public domain, so Delete the local version and swap it for the commons version wherever the local version is being used. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 20:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus and WinnerWolf99: Keep (edit: keep and relicense per Clindberg below. Don't delete in favor of the Commons file as we have a much higher resolution in file history), Copyright 1961 (unreadable on photo) and Copyright © 19?? Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer ? It could still be PD if the copyright wasn't renewed, but figuring that out (it is very easy to screw up) is a bit of a bitch. The "no notice" claim is at least verifiably wrong. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Hmm. I see. I've sent the Commons file to deletion requests. Probably worth saying withdraw Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I don't want to deal with a

    bitch

    so I'll wait until someone else figures it out. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Could've said "pain" but I couldn't recall the word (for that context) when I wrote the above so I just wrote "bitch", though frankly, it is a bit of a bitch. Face-grin.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Verbcatcher: Two different poster versions are linked here. One that's taller (but with the same base image) and one that's nearly identical. Both have different colors compared to the file that was uploaded here. Both have copyright notices. It doesn't really matter because they're all very similar designs and even if only one version had a notice it would become very difficult to defend a public domain status based on the absence of a notice. In this particular case, I found https://www.pinterest.com/pin/295759900514982256/. Same design and the same colors and the line at the bottom can be read: "1712 copyright © 1960-Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. All rights reserved. Country of origin U.S.A. Property of national screen service corp Licensed for display only in connection with the exhibition of this picture at your theatre. Must be returned immediately thereafter. 61/36" — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The Commons file should be deleted unless it can be reliably established that the US copyright was not renewed, in which case c:Template:PD-US-not renewed would be applicable. If the Commons file is deleted then the Wikipedia file should be kept. We should keep the Wikipedia file until the Commons deletion request has been resolved. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: I did a quick search for "Gorgo" and found PA0000142974 for the movie and RE0000393467 for its renewal. Assuming the poster image doesn't appear in the movie itself (which will have to be checked, the movie should be available for free on Tubi but I get a GDPR error), do you think MGM never bothered to register it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Can't imagine the studios bothered renewing posters most of the time. They may or may not have registered it (you'd have to check the older printed volumes I think), but it appears they did not renew it. So, probably just change the tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you! Just for my understanding: if it had been renewed, the renewal should have showed up on cocatalog.loc.gov even if the original registration may or may not be listed? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, online should have any records from 1978 on. Authors could register at any time, including when filing the renewal. They had to wait 27 years to file a renewal though, so that would be online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

December 3

File:Only way Is Up Otis Clay.jpg

[edit]

File:Only way Is Up Otis Clay.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image of the original Otis Clay version of "The Only Way Is Up" is used as a lead image and part of the Clay infobox. Recently, I removed discogs from the article as "unreliable" per WP:RSP#Discogs. Then I searched on Google News and Google Books couldn't find reliable sources that would prove further significance of the original Clay version and improve the article. If I use Wikipedia Library, I bet the results would be the same. Thus, the Clay vinyl image would fail WP:NFCC#8, especially as lead image. The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction. Somehow, the Clay infobox and image were inserted several years back just to push the Yazz infobox down. I'm not nominating an image associated with the cover version of a song as I've done to other images of cover version releases. Rather I'm nominating the image of the original version. George Ho (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now added alternative sources re the significance of the Otis Clay song and could find more if necessary. The Clay infobox was not added "just to push the Yazz infobox down" (see WP:AGF), it was added because it is the original recording, which is highly notable. Placing the infoboxes in a different order would be chronologically wrong - I do not accept that "The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction." Re the image of the Clay label itself, alternative sources could be found if necessary, but my understanding (happy to be corrected) was that Discogs can be used as a source for images, but not for references about those images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think more is necessary; if Yazz's version had neither existed nor made the song popular, I would have redirected the song to Otis Clay. Seriously, I would have. Indeed, how are the weights of original version's and of Yazz version's significances different from those of (They Long to Be) Close to You, All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song), No Me Ames, and Solitaire (Laura Branigan song)? I'll use databases of Wikipedia Library to verify the original's significance soon. George Ho (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Finished using Wikipedia Library databases. Added just info about albums listing the song, but that's much info I can add. I don't think what I added would make the song more significant than I hoped for. George Ho (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. If you just think that the Otis Clay infobox should be removed, why not simply raise that question on the article talk page? Or are you seriously suggesting that all mention of the Otis Clay original version should be removed? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to remove all mention of the Otis Clay original version, but I'll discuss the infobox when the closure of this listing arrives. Actually, I'm trying to make consistency with songs whose cover versions are more popular and more notable than more obscure original counterparts/versions. I also don't want readers to give an impression that. I also don't agree that the Clay version is "highly notable". Rather I think it is "notable" but, if not for Yazz version, not good (or strong) enough for a stand-alone article. George Ho (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Didn't notice the partial sentence, so I'll give a fresher one. When readers see this image, they would see the image as proof of the item's existence. However, when they read the whole article, the readers would get impressions that Yazz version is more prominent, especially at such detail. Then the image of the Clay single reason would be set aside by readers and probably overlooked. To put it another way, I don't think the image of the Clay version would help readers improve their understanding of the releases of the song... or rather understanding of what the critical commentary can convey. Also, I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image of the Clay single release. George Ho (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Those are fair points, but I think that approaching it in this way - rather than simply suggesting on the article talk page that the Clay infobox should be removed - is a strange way to approach it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

October 5

File:The Terror of War.jpg

[edit]

File:The Terror of War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toohool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:TrangBang.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Second image nominated by George Ho (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @WGFinley with the reason "This is a copywritten image owned by the Associate Press, it is not Public Domain." FASTILY 04:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rehman, I contacted the office about this issue, they were able to retrieve the letter and get it in OTRS now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I was worried the letter would be lost after the deletion. Cheers, Rehman 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version, as uploader. The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, as shown on the file description page. A bare assertion of copyright ownership by the AP can't overcome that fact. Note there is also an open FfD discussion on another famous Vietnam War photo in the same situation. Toohool (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Where are you basing your statement that this doesn't have a copyright notice? This image is owned by The Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time, what is the basis of your claim this didn't have a copyright notice? --WGFinley (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@WGFinley: It's based on looking at the newspapers where the photo was published. The file description page includes links to a sampling of newspapers where the image was published with no copyright notice at all. Out of a couple dozen newspapers I found where the photo was published, not a single one had a copyright notice for the photo. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain. Were that true, you using it on WP would make it instantly PD, that's not the case. Nick Ut worked for AP for 51 years, they clearly own this image. https://apnews.com/1bc4725ece764fcab754a99b030f0397 --WGFinley (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Copyright notice was required for works published in the U.S. before 1989, and the failure to include one generally placed a work in the public domain. That is why we have a template for this situation, {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Toohool (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If a license agreement calls for the licensee to include notice, but the licensee fails to do that, that has no effect on copyright status. 17 USC 405(a)(3). We have the template for the situation where, in fact, the notice requirement wasn't met -- not for where Toohool concludes via his naive investigation that it wasn't met.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and the situation's beginning to get serious. There's an enormous body of statute, regulation, and case law on this kind of stuff, and you're running around claiming PD for scores of famous images based on a summary table you saw in some pamphlet. You really think you've made this penetrating analysis everyone else missed? The word sophomoric comes to mind. EEng 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: As I've asked you already, please dial down the confrontational tone. What basis do you have to believe that the notice requirement was met for this image? You are correct that publishing a work without notice in violation of an agreement that explicitly requires notice is an unauthorized publication and therefore does not put the work into the public domain. However, what evidence is there that AP's agreements with its members required them to place a copyright notice on all photos in general, or on this photo in particular? In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. Look at any newspaper from the era and you will probably find every AP image to be lacking a copyright notice. In the very rare instances where they distributed copyrighted photos, most papers did attach a copyright notice to the photo (as in the example of the Jack Ruby photo), which suggests that they required copyright notices to be attached only to certain photos, and makes it very easy to draw the dividing line between those photos that were copyrighted and those that were not. Toohool (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You stated that publication by newspapers without notice necessarily kills the copyright, and now you admit that's not true; you seem to just make stuff up as you go along. I don't need to show what was in AP's licenses, or anything else. You need to show the work is PD, and if that means showing what was or wasn't in various licenses, I guess you'll need to do that. You also seem to think that a copyright notice must appear immediately adjacent to the photo, and that's not true either; in fact, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what form an appropriate notice for an AP photo would take.
As the LC points out [5] many wire service images weren't copyrighted, but "determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous." But here at wp (and Commons) we don't take such "calculated risks". (There are some exceptions, as with e.g. movie studio publicity stills, which were commonly intentionally placed in PD from the very beginning to encourage their wide publication, and we allow ourselves to make that assumption. But that's a very special situation.) So we can't use your speculations about a "dividing line"; we need convincing evidence that the work is PD. EEng 03:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain, because there are exceptions, such as unauthorized publication. You're the one who's brought up that possibility, with no evidence, aka "making stuff up". You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end, and that the AP never did anything about it. It's a pretty extraordinary theory that you should have some evidence for. If we follow your argument, we'll have to delete every {{PD-US-no-notice}} image (about 1300 on enwp and 250,000 on Commons), because it's virtually impossible to prove the nonexistence of a contract with such a clause. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain – That's what you're saying now. Before that, when another editor said "Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain", you said "Yes it does", which isn't true. And before that you wrote The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, which isn't true. And before either of those, on the file description page [6] you wrote The photo was published simultaneously in many newspapers, many of which had no copyright notice at all (neither for the photo in particular, nor for the newspaper as a whole). Copyright was therefore forfeited ..., which also isn't true. Like I said, you're just making it up as you go along.
  • You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end – I'm not positing anything. I'm just showing that, over and over, you make statements about how copyright works which turn out to be false.
By the way, can you please address the point I raised earlier about the acceptable form and location of notice for a wire-service photo? EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Instead of just repeatedly saying "that's not true", and trying to wikilawyer to prove that I've said something incorrect, how about making an actual argument to rebut the evidence I've put forward that shows the photo was published without notice. Like, point to some authority that substantively contradicts what I'm saying, or maybe show us even one example of where the photo was published *with* proper notice on its initial publication? Or, instead of assuming that I don't know what a copyright notice looks like, give us an example of what a notice might look like that you think would be easily overlooked. So far, the only thing of substance you've said in this discussion is that the copyright wasn't forfeited if the AP's license agreement required copyright notice, so why won't you explain how that could plausibly be the case? Toohool (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You're the one saying the notices are missing, yet you refuse to explain what you thought you were looking for when checking for one. I actually don't know all the forms and locations acceptable in a situation like this, but what's clear is that you don't either (or, at least, if you do know you don't want to say) so your statement that notice was missing is hard to credit. And you're the one saying that a missing notice means PD, even though that's clearly not true (e.g. [7] says "Images without a copyright notice may still be under copyright"). Nothing else is needed to show that your reasoning is faulty. EEng 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The notice requirements for pre-1978 works are outlined in Appendix A of chapter 2100 of the Compendium of Copyright Practices. Per Part 4.2.1, the notice must include the terms "Copyright" or "Copr." or the copyright symbol (or a misspelling or close variant of one of those). It also has to identify the claimant, but that's moot in this case, because no notice satisfying even the first requirement was found. The location of the notice is specified in part 4.3.3: For a single-page contribution to a periodical, notice must be placed "anywhere on" the contribution. One might reasonably interpret this as meaning on or immediately adjacent to the photo, or in the caption, but I also looked everywhere else on the page.
Of course I don't believe that lack of notice absolutely places the photo in the PD. We have discussed exceptions to that rule in this very thread and elsewhere. The source you're quoting is simply pointing out that you can't take a random image off of the web, or off of a paper you find on the ground, and assume that it's public domain because there's no copyright notice. It could be an unauthorized publication, or a limited publication, or an unpublished work. It could be that the notice was omitted from only a few copies because of a manufacturing defect or the like. It could be that the copyright notice was removed by a third party after purchase. If you have a theory of some exception that applies in this case, please explain. Toohool (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the original file. I secured permission from the AP to use this file 15 years ago for Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that, we're making a fair use claim for it. Using the image that was uploaded later is at a resolution not in accordance with a fair use claim, it's too high of a resolution. This is image is clearly copywritten by the Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time and he is still alive. There is no valid public domain claim to be made for this image. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "PD", Keep fair-use See above. EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version as PD in the United States per 17 U.S.C. §§ 19-21 (1976), as there is no evidence of notice, and no evidence of a contractual requirement to provide one. Replace non-free version with PD, then delete as no longer required. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment For reference, a discussion on Commons about another AP photo in exactly the same situation has been closed as Keep. Toohool (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep File:TrangBang.jpg, delete File:The Terror of War.jpg Huntster (t @ c) 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: On what basis? Toohool (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Wrapup

@Fastily can we wrap this one up now? The only support for keep for the new image is the uploader. We've been trying to have discussions about it but his positions usually amount to referring to statutes and caselaw. This is pretty clear lawyering. OTRS has a letter from the copyright holder stating they own this image and granted our permission to use it. Notwithstanding that permission we're making a Fair Use claim here. I think the original image should stand with its Fair Use rationale and the subsequent one should be deleted. Pretty clearly I'm involved here so I won't wrap this up but think it should be. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me pointing out that your argument for deleting the image is based on misunderstandings of the law is not lawyering. And we don't delete public domain images just because someone makes an invalid claim of copyright. Toohool (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Discussion has grind to a halt on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete PD, and Keep fair-use, per WGFinley. Neutral, per discussion below. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Alexcalamaro: Which part of his argument do you find convincing? As far as I can see, he didn't say anything to rebut the {{PD-US-no-notice}} argument, other than to suggest that any argument based on laws is invalid. Toohool (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Toohool: I am not a copyright expert. But my understanding is that {{PD-US-no-notice}} applies for images that were always been published without the copyright. That is not the case here. Also, for me it is "common sense" that if somebody did it wrong not correctly notifying the copyright, that doesn't mean that the copyright holder would lose it. Also, we have the ok from AP for the other image, that I think is good enough for our encyclopedic purposes. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Alexcalamaro: Your common-sense understanding that a missing or defective copyright notice should not lead to forfeiture of copyright is certainly true for works created today, and for most of the world since 1886, but it is decidedly not the case for U.S. works before 1989. That's why we even have {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-US-1989}}. Under the pre-1978 copyright law that applies here, there are some aspects of leniency for an author/publisher who simply "did it wrong". For example: misspelling "copyright", listing the wrong entity as the author, pre-dating the copyright year, or omitting the notice on a few copies because of a printing defect, are types of mistakes that generally do not forfeit copyright. This case does not seem to fall into any of these forgivable types of mistakes, as far as anyone has been able to identify. What we have here is simply no evidence of any attempt or effort to put a proper copyright notice on the photo (at least not until many years later). Toohool (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue goes beyond my "common-sense". And considering that the other related nominations (Campus guns and Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém) have resulted in Keep, I've changed my view to Neutral (not to Keep because I don't have enough knowledge of copyright laws). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

January 9[edit]

File:Somersby.PNG[edit]

File:Somersby.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by White Shadows (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo (taken 1930–1941) is claimed public domain and attributed to the Allen Collection, but copyright is unknown for most photos in the collection. No evidence is provided that Allen Collection photos are out of copyright. I suggest relicense to non-free. If a free alternative exists ([8] might be PD in US, depending on whether it was ever published) I suggest delete. Wikiacc () 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Daylight Saving 1933.jpg[edit]

File:Daylight Saving 1933.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Flipchip73 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:DaylightSavingBill1933.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Flipchip73 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

News clippings from Singapore, 1933. Copyright in Singapore is 70 years from publication for anonymous works, so US copyright was likely restored by URAA. See c:COM:Singapore. Wikiacc () 07:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - may not be PD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - The newspaper clipping is available online and the url is listed on each file. Since it was over 70 years since it was first published, not sure why it is being questioned. Flipchip73 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Fort malden circa 1804.gif[edit]

File:Fort malden circa 1804.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BrawlinStalin397 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Fort malden circa 1840.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BrawlinStalin397 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Old-looking images posted online by Parks Canada. Not enough detail is provided to determine their source or author, or especially the images are sufficiently old for public domain. (50 years for Crown Copyright, potentially more for a private work. See c:COM:Canada.) Wikiacc () 07:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Hudson NH Flag.jpg[edit]

File:Hudson NH Flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matt Lepore (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Town flag of Hudson, New Hampshire, dating to 1975. Works of the state of New Hampshire, and its subdivisions, are copyrighted. Unused. Wikiacc () 07:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office.jpg[edit]

File:Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pedroluismx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the state government of Texas and its subdivisions are generally copyrighted. Wikiacc () 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Hidalgo County Sheriff Badge.png[edit]

File:Hidalgo County Sheriff Badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pedroluismx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the state government of Texas and its subdivisions are generally copyrighted. Wikiacc () 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:IODP JOIDES Resolution expedition map 2013-2020.jpg[edit]

File:IODP JOIDES Resolution expedition map 2013-2020.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ginny Lowe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source page does not actually release the map into the public domain. It only states "Expedition maps are provided for free use by researchers, policy makers, the media, and the public." Wikiacc () 08:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Linea dell'Impero poster.jpg[edit]

File:Linea dell'Impero poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Srnec (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Italian creative work, author unknown, from 1930s. Copyright in Italy lasted 70 years from publication, so US copyright was restored by URAA. Wikiacc () 08:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Mella bank logo.JpG[edit]

File:Mella bank logo.JpG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bobakkh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo from Iran. Contrary to uploader's claims, logos of state-owned companies appear to be copyrighted in Iran. Image is unused (the company appears not to have an article). Wikiacc () 08:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Michigan's 28th State House District Map.jpg[edit]

File:Michigan's 28th State House District Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Firelover01 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the state government of Michigan are generally copyrighted. Wikiacc () 08:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fontawesone[edit]

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: Withdrawn -FASTILY 00:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Create.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paper9oll (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Edit File.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paper9oll (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These image files do not have a source provided, but do have a link to a Fotnaweseome license page. These images are asserted to be under a cc-by-4.0 license but that is not the license provided at the license page. Instead, it is a specific set of license terms provided by Fontawesome. Although the license permits distribution and modificaton, that omly applies to "creators" which are license seats and excludes anybody not named in the license. As such, this is not a free license, and definitely not cc-by-4.0 Whpq (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Whpq: Font Awesome state that, "Attribution 4.0 International license and requires that you comply with the following: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. This brand icon is a trademark of the respective owner. The use of this trademark does not indicate endorsement of the trademark holder by Font Awesome, nor vice versa. Please do not use brand logos for any purpose except to represent the company, product, or service to which they refer." To view this, go to [9] or other icons and click the download svg icon and a modal will pop-up. In fact, I comply with the request to include the link to the license. Hence, why is this a problem? – Paper9oll (📣📝) 15:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: Yes, I can see that in the download SVG link. Two issues with that. The first issue is the license link. For whatever reason, Fontawesome has provided a license link that make no mention of the cc-by-4.0 license that they stated in the download link. So anybody looking at the license link won't find the stated license. The second issue is the source. You haven't provided a source for these icon images. The Fontawesome site is a mix of free and paid icons. As best I can tell, the paid versions are not covered under a cc-by-4.0 license. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whpq: The icon/images is not paid/pro version but free version. I got it from [10] and [11], the paid/pro version is available with narrow design or duotone version, however the icon/images I have uploaded is regular version which is pretty clear if compare side-by-side against the provided link. However, I see that the download link information and the license page have mix information, however I'm just following what FontAwesome have stated. – Paper9oll (📣📝) 16:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: Yes you did follow the directions provided by Fontawesome. I did some digging and it looks like Fontawesome is providing the wrong license link for the free icons. See this page which does talk about free licensing and cc-by-4.0. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination - See above discussion. The files are cc-by-4.0 although the source site's information is confusing. I have updated the file summary section of each file with the source of the file and added an explanation of the licensing on the file talk pages. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
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:JCT AK-1 AK-2.png[edit]

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 23:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:JCT AK-1 AK-2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CRoy23PSE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is not the copyright holder of the work and cannot release it into the public domain. Original image is a screenshot of Google StreetView. https://www.google.com/maps/@63.3359159,-142.9880121,3a,75y,133.78h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj3PdwRdOZZyYbA0MJl40PA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656Fredddie 20:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. I have tagged it WP:F9. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
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.

Recent nominations[edit]

January 10[edit]

File:Optomen.png[edit]

File:Optomen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I'm pretty certain that the logo of Optomen is ineligible for US copyright. Threshold of originality is very high in the US; should be tagged as "PD-ineligible-USonly". However, UK copyright relies on "sweat of the brow" doctrine, so standards for protection are very low and would make this logo copyrightable. I'm listing this here because the file page contains an email record of permission. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you rather think {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is more suitable alternative, or is the template what you meant? George Ho (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

January 12[edit]

File:Confederate Motor Company logo.svg[edit]

File:Confederate Motor Company logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FrigidNinja (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is not referenced by any page. The company that originally used this logo rebranded to Curtiss Motorcycles and now uses a different logo. A spin-off company retained the logo, but that spin-off does not currently have a page of its own. In the event that the company does have a page created, a better logo could be uploaded at that time. (The current file is marked as 'bad trace'.) — RossO (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Shazam! Film - Zachary Levi On Set 2018 - By Steve Wilkie.jpg[edit]

File:Shazam! Film - Zachary Levi On Set 2018 - By Steve Wilkie.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Horacio Vara (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. The image is used in the filming section, but makes no reference to the image nor is there any sort of commentary to support the stated vague stated purpose "Visual of Zachary Levi on the set of Shazam!, and his costume.". Whpq (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete not enough commentary to justify fair use. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as the image caption's commentary is not mentioned in prose in order to justify fair use, as well as the first party source and a WP:SPS. Chompy Ace 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

File:ElenaMandinga (cropped).png[edit]

File:ElenaMandinga (cropped).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cartoon network freak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Available under correct file format: File:ElenaMandinga (cropped).jpg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete essentially orphaned, no need to keep if at commons under JPG format. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

File:German Republikaner Logo.png[edit]

File:German Republikaner Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JackWilfred (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Available under superior file format: File:REP Logo Claim.svg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete orphaned, no need to keep if at commons under SVG format. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Axel F - Harold Faltermeyer.ogg[edit]

File:Axel F - Harold Faltermeyer.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The lorax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I wanted to PROD the sample of Axel F, used for an infobox, but then I figured more discussion is needed. I'm uncertain whether this sample meets WP:NFCC#8, even with seven seconds. If further article improvements are needed, then I would be humble and glad to make them. However, I'm skeptical whether improvements would make critical commentary sufficient enough to justify usage of the sample. George Ho (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

File:University cup moncton.jpg[edit]

File:University cup moncton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stu pendousmat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works in Canada FASTILY 00:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Saumyendranath Tagore.jpg[edit]

File:Saumyendranath Tagore.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moyoor97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo from India, date of creation unknown, date of first publication unknown. Insufficient information provided to determine if this photo is public domain (see c:COM:India). Wikiacc () 02:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Seal of the City of Tybee Island.png[edit]

File:Seal of the City of Tybee Island.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Historical-Buff (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Work of a municipality in Georgia (state), date unknown. Works by local governments in Georgia are generally copyrighted. Wikiacc () 02:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Seal of the City of Brunswick Maryland.gif[edit]

File:Seal of the City of Brunswick Maryland.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jb91archivist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Work of a municipality in the state of Maryland, date unknown. Works by local governments in Maryland are generally copyrighted. Wikiacc () 02:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Welcome Sign North West Entrance.JPG[edit]

File:Welcome Sign North West Entrance.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MurderWatcher1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome Sign North West Entrance.JPG Magog the Ogre (tc) 04:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Welcome screen on a Jet Airways flight.JPG[edit]

File:Welcome screen on a Jet Airways flight.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neo198717 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome screen on a Jet Airways flight.JPG Magog the Ogre (tc) 04:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Paramus Park Turkey Statue, 2015.jpeg[edit]

File:Paramus Park Turkey Statue, 2015.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TMBLover (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paramus Park Turkey Statue, 2015.jpeg Magog the Ogre (tc) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:New Dorm Sign Drew University.jpg[edit]

File:New Dorm Sign Drew University.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CUBJONES83 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Dorm Sign Drew University.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 04:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:1995 Delphi Fact Sheet.jpeg[edit]

File:1995 Delphi Fact Sheet.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jim McKeeth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a fair-use copy of a marketing fact sheet, but I do not believe that the use of the fact sheet provides sufficient irreplaceable context to the article to overcome NFCC 8 (contextual significance). I could see use of the product logo or a screenshot of the application potentially overcoming NFCC 8, but not this whole image. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The image is provided for historical purposes by the copyright holder (Embarcadero Technologies) for permission to use on Wikipedia. Jim McKeeth (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

File:RenTech Contract.pdf[edit]

File:RenTech Contract.pdf (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deltagammaz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A private document that was used as evidence in legal case. The US federal government did not make this work. It is still copyrighted by its original copyright owner. Wikiacc () 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Claude Dampier.jpg[edit]

File:Claude Dampier.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beryl reid fan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image may actually be free. Postcard from "c.1910s"; can this safely be said to have been published in 1910s also? Wikiacc () 02:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Solo MMC wiki.jpg[edit]

File:Solo MMC wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dknelson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

non-free derivative of product packaging AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png[edit]

File:SM Entertainment Group Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Starmuseum1995 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:COM:TOO South Korea. Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Tualatin Hills Park Recreation District logo.gif[edit]

File:Tualatin Hills Park Recreation District logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aboutmovies (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tualatin Hills Park Recreation District logo.gif Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:PolishAmericans for BushCheney.jpg[edit]

File:PolishAmericans for BushCheney.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Votevotevote2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Votevotevote2012 Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:PolishAmericans for Dole.jpg[edit]

File:PolishAmericans for Dole.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Votevotevote2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Votevotevote2012 Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Polish-Americans for Obama.jpg[edit]

File:Polish-Americans for Obama.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Votevotevote2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Votevotevote2012 Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:3GPP 5G logo.png[edit]

File:3GPP 5G logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Estoy Aquí (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:3GPP 5G logo.png Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Election Headquarters.jpg[edit]

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

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Election Headquarters.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Pact cmyk.jpg[edit]

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

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pact cmyk.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Radisson Blu logo.svg[edit]

File:Radisson Blu logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Radisson logo. Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Radisson logo.svg[edit]

File:Radisson logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Radisson logo. Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:WBBL04CapLogoSixers.svg[edit]

File:WBBL04CapLogoSixers.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PabloWarhola (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WBBL04CapLogoSixers.svg Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Record changer dscn1667a.jpg[edit]

File:Record changer dscn1667a.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bernd in Japan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record changer dscn1667a.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 23:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

File:PEI registration plate.jpg[edit]

File:PEI registration plate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dmartin969 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PEI registration plate.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 06:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is January 16 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 16 – (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 "===January 16===" 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.