Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

File:Wboy news.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these files is a non-free screenshot being used in the "News operations" or "Newscasts" sections of various articles about TV stations. Each file is provided with a non-free use rationale, but none of these respective usages seem to provide the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8. There is no sourced discussion of any of these screenshots themselves within the relevant section, and the captions provided for the file simply say "Former news open" or something similar. The reader does not need to see any of these non-free screenshots to understand that the concerned station provides/provided news programming at certain times or on certain days. In addition, many of the screenshots simply show the station's logo, which can already be seen in the article's infobox, so there's no real need for them per WP:NFCC#3a. I think it's possible that arguments might be made that some of these screenshots (e.g., File:West michigan open.png, File:Wtlh news.png or File:Wbko news.png) are too simple to be treated as non-free, and, therefore, should be seen as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-simple}}. However, I think the precautionary principle used by Wikimedia Commons should be followed unless there is a clear consensus that they do. Suggest remove per NFCC#8 for each file in the absence of a clear consensus to convert to a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Montana tech logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 05:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be {{PD-logo}}? BethNaught (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coloured letters alone are not copyrightable at all.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the two most recent files to c:File:Montana Tech logo.png. The oldest revision is a different logo and should in my opinion either be split off or deleted. Not sure if we want the high-resolution or the low-resolution version as the current version of the logo. The low-resolution one contains more transparent pixels above and below the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NewGirlTitlesS5.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-simple}}. — ξ ^xplicit 05:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image isn't really original enough to be copyrightable - just some coloured text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Scott Cooper.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person is probably not the person the description claims it is. Scott_Cooper_(baseball) was 41 in 2008 (when the description says this photo was taken) and doesn't really look like this in non-free files.

Without knowing the identity of this person, this image is of no use. LukeSurl^{t c} 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:IOS + watchOS iMessage Continuity.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER: someone could license a photograph and a conversation. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Power Rangers Dino Super Charge logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: remove from List of Power Rangers Dino Super Charge episodes. — ξ ^xplicit 05:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use in List of Power Rangers Dino Super Charge episodes fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mandic2008.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milic2008.jpg

I dispute the usage of those files complies with the fair use criteria. The rationale says that the image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article, but actually it isn't. Topic of the article are elections, and those images are just advertisements for some of the candidates, i.e. not identifying the topic. The rationale also goes on to say that the images provide an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. I dispute this, as the article is about elections and those images are not directly relevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.