Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12

File:PearlStableInside4.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PearlStableInside5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PearlStableInside6.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

"Relatives" of pictures that I requested to be deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 4#File:PearlStableInside1.jpg. Same questionable histories: to quote a passage of the first revision of the description page of "PearlStableInside4.jpg," Image was created by, and is copyrighted by Silver Ventures Inc. Silver Ventures has given written authorization for this image to be used on Wikipedia's article on the Pearl Brewing Company. Image is used here under permission, but may not be reused anywhere else or altered in any form without prior written authorization of Silver Ventures Inc. In addition to the lack of metadata of the three photos, this suggests they were not from the uploader's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Delete - Originally uploaded as fair use with a very explicit statement of copyright as noted above, there is no evidence of permission for the license change to a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2020 (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:PearlOldxXxLogo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a copyrighted logo, above threshold of originality. I doubt it would survive in Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of any issue on threshold of originality, this image is a photo of the logo that is part of a building, and the "Photo is part of the Silver Ventures collection, but has been released for reuse and distribution as part of a media kit.". There is no evidence that this photo is under a free license. The press kits that I've seen have not been released under free licenses. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above the threshold of originality in the US. Not covered by FOP in the US because the logo is conceptually separable from the building. Other images of the logo may be OK because the logo is out of copyright (I haven't checked), but since this is a 3D work, there is copyrightable authorship in the work itself and in the reproduction. We have no evidence that the reproduction (the image) was released under a free license, so we must treat it as non-free. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2020 (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:SummerXSummerOST.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Summer x Summer#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8 as noted by nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2020 (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:SweetRelationshipOST.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Sweet Relationship#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8 as noted by nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (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:Michael Bambang Hartono.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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image dos not have a specific license but includes a link to a copy of an email exchange with the source site requesting permission. The permission is problematic in several ways:

There is no specific license identified
The implication is that these images are only for Wikipedia
Implied non-commercial use

Additionally, it is unclear if the source site is even the copyright holder of the image. Whpq (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No license, insufficient information to identify the source. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2020 (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:2018 Bean Station Sewer Master Plan.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged WP:F7 by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) with rationale "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". The image--of a sewer system--has been added to an article is about a small town. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file showcases a map of Bean Station and a 2018 installation project of a public sewer system, which is a considered a historic event in the town given the argued previous attempts of the project per Wikipedia:NFCI. "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image does not have "iconic status or historical importance". That guideline recommendation is very limited in scope, and does not apply to a modern image like this (think more Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).
This image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 based on the guidance in WP:NFC#CS because it is not necessary for the identification of the topic and the item itself (the map depicting the location of the system) is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. If the system was controversial because of where it did and did not extend, and that controversy was the subject of sourced commentary in the article, the image may be usable under the NFCC. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. To further clarify what AntiCompositNumber posted above. An event might certainly be considered historic (though I'm not sure a 2018 public sewer system project is actually "historic"), images or photographs of the event or related to the aren't automatcially also considered historic as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. Looking at the way this file is being used in Bean Station, Tennessee#Wastewater, there's really no sourced critical commentary in that section about this map itself; there's content about the project, but none of that requires that this particular image be seen by the reader to be understood. WP:FREER states that text content may be considered a "free equivalent" to using a non-free image and that seems sufficient here as well; moreover, there also seems to be no reasonable reason why a free equivalent map showing pretty much the same information couldn't be created. This map itself may be copyright, but a rough map of the town could probably be created and used to provide pretty much the same information if an image is necessary. It doesn't have to be a topographical map, but something more simple that shows the layout of the sewer system over a map of the town. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The stated purpose of the image is a vague so it is unclear what exactly this image supports. The article text makes no reference to the image, nor does the engineering plan showing teh layout support any of the material in the article text. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (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:Princess Cristina de Ligne Orléans-Bragança crest.xcf

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variation of File:COA Dinasty Orleães-Bragança.svg and probably something else.

Licensing is unclear (PD? FU?)
Purpose is unclear (Princess Cristina of Ligne and Orléans-Braganza is linked but doesn't exist)
Origin is unclear (is this an official crest of anything?)
File was uploaded in modern GIMP format that MediaWiki doesn't understand, you have to download and open it with GIMP to view it (here's a scaled down version)
Was also uploaded to Commons as c:File:Princess Cristina de Ligne Orléans-Bragança crest.xcf — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who made it and I want to clarify what you asked

Yeah I need help on that. I wish to have it be public domain)I changed my mind)
That crest is a personal one from the Princess. I wished to put it in the Portuguese version of the page (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Maria_Isabel_de_Orl%C3%A9ans_e_Bragan%C3%A7a), and I provided the wrong hyperlink because the page in English was deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Christine_of_Orl%C3%A9ans-Braganza).
The official(dunno a better word for it) of the Brazilian Imperial House tweet this photo^[1] with the crest.
Yeah my bad, I noticed that Wikipedia accepted this file so I thought it was ok but I later on noticed the opposite.
Is that bad?

Davi Salomão (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/ProMonarquia/status/1293198016179052549

@Davi Salomão: You're not the copyright holder. So what you wish doesn't really matter. Many crests are in the public domain for one reason or another, generally because they are too old for copyright protection (generally 120+ years old) or because various countries have more strict limitations on the government getting copyright on their works. But we don't know if this one is in the public domain. To answer your last question: no, but possibly redundant. If a file is available on Commons, it is also available here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:46, 19 August 2020 (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.

[1] ttps://twitter.com/ProMonarquia/status/1293198016179052549