Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29[edit]

File:MistyKSnow.jpg[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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image was only recently added—easier to remove from the article than to bring to discussion czar 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar. Thanks for removing the file from the article. I actually usually removed disputed/obvious copyvio files from articles if they were uploaded to commons. So, in this case, should I have even listed it here or simply deleted it? Sorry not to know. I seldom handle non-free files like this. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the photo (BRD) and then a bot will tag it as unused fair use. Either someone will object (and it'll go to discussion) or it will be deleted uncontroversially in a week. Feel free to drop a line if you have file questions in the future czar 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar. An excellent method. I will do that next time. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 30 December 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:Menwithmonsters.jpg[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 czar 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not have any critical commentary. With a few discussions with the commentator, it's mostly there for what is claimed to show how the actor looks without the suit. It's "interesting", but it's something that could potentially be replaced with a free image and since there is no sources or information backing up why we have to show the actor, it's something that I would not use unless this image is free. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the one that uploaded the picture and the reason for that upload (or any upload. I'm not really a believer in uploading photos to make articles look prettier) was to help people understand portions of the article better that simple text might not fully convey. The reason I uploaded that particular photo was to show the three men that brought the monsters to life on screen and to show the props that were used for filming which is covered in the last paragraph of the production section of the article. I believe this picture can educate readers with its clear visuals for the production of the film that text might not fully explain. Since non-fee media is allowed by the Wikipedia I believe there is no reason for the picture to be deleted since it has the necessary templates and usage rationale.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify and keep my reply simple, I'm against this only as it's just "showing what they look like", which is appropriate for a page on the actors, but not good enough for an article on the film, where's it's not necessary. A perk, but what they look like is not important as let's say the actor who plays R2D2, who is notably shorter than an average person. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note: The article discusses how the puppets were operated. If something about this operation were not understandable via the text alone, an image would be warranted (contextual significance). In this case, there is no contextual significance needed to see the actors with props. czar 09:39, 15 January 2017 (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:Simpulum.jpg[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 czar 09:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. A free image could be taken or obtained. Kelly ^hi! 07:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally members of the public are not allowed to photograph items on display. They have a cabinet full of these currently on display in the British Museum but I wasn't allowed to photograph them. Jack1956 (talk)`

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:27, 29 December 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:Hahn-Cock.jpg[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: Keep but return to FU only. Per Czar this wasn't a permanently displayed work of art. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom has Freedom of Panorama, so whilst I can understand the uploaders caution in using an NFUR here, I am not entirly sure it needs one. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's not clear which FoP rules are used in the US for foreign artworks, hence why commons:Template:Not-free-US-FOP exists. FoP-UK does apply though, it does cover 3D artworks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned about the photograph itself. We don't appear to have any licensing information for that. FoP applies in the UK and our policies indicate we consider the source country's FoP rules until a court clarifies the whole mess, so that's fine. But the photographer has a copyright claim to this particular photograph, and until they offer a specific license, this can only be used under non-free use. But I doubt we can claim this isn't replaceable given that the work is still displayed in public, so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Could you supply this under a suitable free license if you were the photographer, Prioryman? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending a response to my above question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sent Prioryman a reminder, see user's talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the image myself, so I'm happy to add a PD-self licence to the image. Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll leave this to another administrator or non-admin closer to close, but this fully addresses my concern and brings this image in line with our policies. Jo-Jo Eumerus' concern is a real one, but the community and WMF legal have been clear in the past that we shouldn't apply US FoP rules to foreign works until a court indicates we should. Doing so would be pretty disastrous; there's loads of foreign FoP content on enwiki and Commons that wouldn't qualify for US FoP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here as fair use. Mind that FoP-UK applies only to sculptures installed "permanently" (the natural life of the work—see Permanent vs temporary). Our article on the Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square (where the sculpture was installed) also says that the installations are temporary. FoP-UK does not apply to this sculpture. czar 17:25, 5 January 2017 (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:Washington-bible.jpg[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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 15#File:Washington-bible.jpg}}

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:Book of common prayer 1662.jpg[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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 15#File:Book_of_common_prayer_1662.jpg}}

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:Emory-university-psychology.jpg[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: keep: EXIF matches other uploads czar 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions, has identical EXIF to some other "self" tagged files.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to doubt. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:14, 29 December 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 Corrs - Talk On Corners (Special Edition).jpg[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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 20#File:The_Corrs_-_Talk_On_Corners_(Special_Edition).jpg}}

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:Dam im imię na wieki - Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik.jpg[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: Keep (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover in article about author without significant commentary on book. See WP:NFCI #1 Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please read the corresponding articles first, before nominating! The semi-automated manner (see above for the syntax) in which User:Ramaksoud2000 nominates uploads within seconds from each other is unacceptable. The problem needs to discussed further; but in this particular case, the book illustrated here is the sole reason why Edward Kopówka has a Wikipedia article. The book is discussed at length in separate section of his biography, which proves that the article wasn't even looked at. Poeticbent talk 16:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I nominated this file at FFD, and not the others, is because I actually did read the article. I saw there was half a sentence about this book, and I did not believe that qualified as significant commentary. However, since there was half a sentence, instead of no commentary, I did not put the 7-day F7 template, and instead nominated it here. 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ramaksoud2000, I have a very difficult time understanding what it is that you are talking about. The entire section (!) in the Kopówka's biography is about that one particular book (listed here) and little else, because his book Dam im imię na wieki has been referenced in the Treblinka extermination camp (a Wikipedia:Good article) 171 times. Kopówka is an expert on the subject, and the book took over 10 years to write. Poeticbent talk 18:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that "The book about Treblinka" and "Dam im imię na wieki" are the same thing? I wasn't clear on that. If so, I

I withdraw my nomination . Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:51, 29 December 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:13 Musical Mark Taper Forum.jpg[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 ⚡ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its use in the biography relates to one sentence about an event the person attended. Not needed and fails WP:NFC. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:48, 29 December 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:Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition Player's Handbook.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: Done -FASTILY 03:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from article National Toy Hall of Fame; there is no fair-use rationale on the image description page that corresponds to that article, nor do I think any rationale for that article could meet NFCC #8. Rationale for Editions of Dungeons & Dragons remains valid. Powers ^T 18:27, 29 December 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:FPSnorkyfireengine.jpg[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: Done -FASTILY 03:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from article National Toy Hall of Fame; there is no fair-use rationale on the image description page that corresponds to that article, nor do I think any rationale for that article could meet NFCC #8. Rationale for Little People remains valid. Powers ^T 18:27, 29 December 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:Donne in musica competition.jpg[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 ⚡ 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this image was created by the uploader (as claimed), then it's not real diploma. Hence, it is useless. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 29 December 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:Jury of Jeunesses Musicales International Competition.jpg[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 ⚡ 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a book scan. No permission from the author. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this looks like a scan, and thus is a likely copyright violation (depending on the age of the book, but even if out of copyright, requires proper attribution). The images used in three articles to support the statement that the article subject was a member of this jury. A better approach would be to simply include the list of the jury members with proper attribution. As a noncreative list, the list itself would not be a violation of copyright.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:28, 4 January 2017 (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:Save0020.JPG[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 ⚡ 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work. Scan of concert catalog. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this looks like a scan. If used in an article, it might qualify for nonfree use but it isn't being used in an article. Unless evidence can be provided that it is out of copyright, it should be deleted.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:32, 4 January 2017 (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:Butuan Polysports Baseball Park.jpg[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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File has a source and seems to be a phot taken by the uploader, but is licensed as {{ir-Philippines government}}. The file's licensing was changed here by IP 180.190.78.200, who made similar changes to other files of the same uploader. Just a little background, the uploader has been blocked for socking on various articles. Some of the other accounts were also engaged in sockpuppetry at Commons, making similar licensing changes as IP 180.190.78.200, and were blocked there. If the problem with the Ronald Galope Barniso uploads is just way they are currently licensed, and they are OK as {{self}}, then that's fine with me. I am just asking for opinions on whether these are OK in general, esepcially since there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines per c:COM:FOP#Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 29 December 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:EUnames isles.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 ⚡ 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file has not been used in any articles, and I do not find any article to use the file in. I also think that transferring to Commons is inappropriate. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 29 December 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.