Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28

File:Drwhostub-03.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: Relist czar 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Drwhostub-03.JPG

Unused in mainspace, blurry, possibly uploaded as a WP:POINT FASTILY 02:38, 28 July 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:The Real Housewives of Sydney 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: Relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} seeing as we don't know the copyright status in Australia Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is licensed as non-free content, but it seems too simple for copyright protection and more likely {{PD-logo}} or at the very least {{PD-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nom. ★ Bigr Tex 20:05, 8 August 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.

The Wire screenshots

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 articles as described by nominator ★ Bigr Tex 20:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshots being used in The Wire as well as some individual episodes articles. A non-free rationale is provided for each use, but some of the uses are decorative which is not something really allowed by WP:NFCC.

The use of "File:Wire07.jpg" in One Arrest (The Wire episode) seems fine since it is being used in the main infobox as the primary means of identification for the episode. Use in the "Cast and characters" in The Wire, however, seem mainly decorative since the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary so context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. Suggest keep for the episode article, but remove from the main article.

"File:TheWire21alt.jpg" is being used in Duck and Cover (The Wire) in addition to the main article. Use in both articles seems decorative since the screenshot itself is not the subject of a sourced commentary and is not being used as the primary means of identification in either article's infobox. Suggest remove from both articles.

"File:TheWireS4.jpg" is only being used in the "Cast and characters" section of the main article. For the same reasons given above for the other two images, this type of usage appears more decorative than contextual. It's hard to see how non-free use can be justified simply for two sentences which just mention these characters in general terms, especially since each character has its own stand-alone article. Suggest remove from article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 28 July 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:Sky Cinema UK 2016 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: keep: UK logo copyright threshold is very low; the duplicate likely to be removed from Commons czar 05:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated on Commons by Commons:File:SkyCinema.pngSfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it didn't have proper copyright--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 08:46, 28 July 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:HarvardStaughton.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: resolved czar 05:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this tagged as still being in copyright outside the US? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 28 July 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:Yogic Yang Spiral.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but there seemed to be doubt expressed at Commons concerning this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 28 July 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:La Cañada Real Galiana - Satellite.jpeg

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 as F4 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader sees to consider this F9, on the basis of it having been mis-identified it as CC, However because the CSD was subst, it's not showing up as such, hence brought to FFD for a further consideration concerning fair-use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was the person who had tagged this image for speedy deletion! It was one of the images I had uploaded by mistake with what I had thought was inadequate evidence of free use copyright status. If appropriate, please go right ahead and delete it. The last thing I want is to have improperly sourced material up.

FYI, a few minutes ago I had posted an earlier comment about this image. Please ignore that comment (which I just removed, but which can be viewed on the talk history). For a second there, I thought the F9 was referring to a different map image I had used (of the same location), which I had put up as a properly sourced replacement for the image that is now up for deletion.

Apologies for any confusion! Hope this helps. And feel free to ask me any question if there are any outstanding questions :)

Best,

Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am somewhat curious--how was the CC status substantiated? This was one of those images I had improperly uploaded because Google said it was fair use. When I did additional checking, I couldn't find any evidence that it was. So I am actually surprised that it was substantiated--seems strange. ::Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturgeontransformer (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturgeontransformer and Sfan00 IMG: Is there a reason why the F9 is wrong or WP:CSD#G7 should not apply here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it here because the F9 was subst. If the uploader identified it as such I don't see any reason why it's not.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been wondering if these images qualified as 'non-free use' on the basis of news coverage of un-repeatable events though.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was the one who uploaded the image, and thus identified it as such. If someone else provides evidence to explain how it is substantiated, obviously I won't argue with that. However, I had uploaded this image without properly verifying the copyright status, so whatever I may have previously claimed doesn't have much basis. In the meantime, I will add a subst:npd tag to the file. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Respectfully, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:21, 5 August 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:Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former crest of the soccer club Ulsan Dolphins being used in a decorative manner in Ulsan Dolphins#Crests. Files has a non-free use rationale, but it claims that the file is needed to identify the representative team is not really correct since File:Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin.png serves that role in the main infobox. Moreover, the particular version of the crest itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. Finally, the only difference between the logo used to identify the team in the infobox and this former version seems to be the number of stars; the rest of the logo seems identical which means there is really no reason for the reason to see both per WP:NFCC#3a and the difference in stars can be more than adequately explained using text per WP:NFCC#1. Suggest remove from article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 28 July 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.