Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9[edit]

File:SpecSpiderMag2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already one piece of non-free media identifying this series. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough — and I'm even the guy who uploaded it (back in 2005, my first year here, when I was still learning the ropes). Delete away; we've an image of issue #1, which is historically more important. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 10 September 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:Specv.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 ⚡ 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are already multiple pieces of non-free media on this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 9 September 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:PicassoGuernica.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: Resolved.. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision delete. This non-free file was recently overwritten with a much higher resolution version. The version uploaded on 04:24, 9 September 2017 is almost certainly too large to meet WP:NFCC criteria #3, see WP:IMAGERES. I suggest deleting the version uploaded on 04:24, 9 September 2017, but keeping the older, lower resolution version, uploaded on 01:17, 17 October 2007. The older revision's size was already carefully considered at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, so should be fine. —RP88 ^(talk) 10:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree. The new version is a cleaner copy, and could easily be reduced to satisfy the NFCC. That said, I've requested a non-free reduce. -FASTILY 00:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a good solution. I'm not sure the recently uploaded larger version accurately reflects the subtle near-monochrome color scheme of Guernica. Furthermore, the original size is the result of careful discussion at WP:Non-free content review, the size chosen by the bot will almost certainly not accurately reflect that discussion. In addition, your replacement of the the {{ffd}} tag with the {{Non-free reduce}} tag has removed the notice that the file is under discussion here. A further problem with retaining the overwriting version is that the uploader of the larger version did not provide a source for their version (the file description still shows the source of the original lower-resolution version) and we can't ask the uploader where they got the larger version as they've since been indef banned. I'm going to revert your replacement of the the {{ffd}} tag with the {{Non-free reduce}} tag. —RP88 ^(talk) 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is all true, why didn't you simply revert the file to the 01:17, 17 October 2007 version and tag it {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}? FfD could imply that you wish to discuss a contentious change... -FASTILY 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons. First, as the uploader wasn't banned at the time I opened this entry, I thought a discussion might be more fruitful than a speedy. Second, I was reluctant (or even a little cowardly) to take the approach you describe since after the deletion of the earlier revisions it would leave the file description page looking like I was the uploader of this non-free image, and the Picasso estate is notoriously litigious (albeit realistically probably a very remote concern). —RP88 ^(talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure is to revdel old non-free revisions (example). You won't be 'looking like' you were the uploader. -FASTILY 21:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. If I were to revert this file to the original revision, and the overwriting revision was then rev deleted, this file would still appear in my list of uploaded files at Special:ListFiles/RP88. —RP88 ^(talk) 21:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, since this file has been listed for more than seven days, and you're an admin, I have no objection if you wish to resolve this discussion by reverting the file to the original and then performing a revdel on the intermediate revision instead of deleting the overwriting revision and keeping the original as I proposed. —RP88 ^(talk) 21:46, 17 September 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:Salem-Fallout4.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 ⚡ 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image failing WP:NFCC#8 as FAllout 4 is sinply one of a list of video games in the article without significant commentary about this image. Whpq (talk) 14:54, 9 September 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:Diagram of selected characters in the novel Doctor Zhivago by Pasternak.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 ⚡ 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been set up as non-free, since it has not been copied from somewhere else, but created by the uplpader - should it not be a free image? It's impossible to reduce to NFCC guidelines. The amount of information in the image is no less than some plots in Wikipedia. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:08, 9 September 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:Phalitamsha Audition Call.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. NFCC8 concerns have not been addresses, seems like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of peo[le at an audition. There is no sourced commentary to support his image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitha Poo Manam: This discussion is not a simple vote. you need to state why the image is kept, and address the issue with the image not meeting criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is defining or indicating the era of the film. The film was in 1976 and the image is also in 1976. Therefore, the image is so pressies to keep here.

And, no free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this image defining or indicating the era of the film in any way relevant to the point that there is no sourced commentary (or for that matter unsourced commentary) about this image or anything related to it? -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: File as it is been currently used lacks the context required by WP:NFCC#8. The image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article; in fact, there is actually nothing at all about this particular auditiion in the article. Even if such content were to be added, it's hard to see how a crowd shot such as this would be needed per WP:NFCC#1 in support of textual content simply stating something along the lines of "lots of people responded to the audition call at the Airlines hotel". Non-free crowd shots such as this are not typically allowed just to show a large group of people; there needs to be something specific about this particular image itself which significantly improves the reader's understanding of the relevant article content, so that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 21 September 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:Tov lenin ochishchaet.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. As noted here, stuff published before 1923 is automatically PD in the US. Whether it is PD somewhere else doesn't matter; whether it should matter is a question for a policy discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not PD in the country of origin. No evidence that it was first published in the United States before 1923 to be PD in US as claimed. Sealle (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the rule; the rule is if it was published anywhere before 1923, it's PD in the US. See c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prosfilaes, would you please read this once again, especially from here: Works which were first published outside the US and not subsequently republished in the US... and show me, where one can find the word anywhere in the header and caption of this table. Sealle (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Works which were first published outside the US (and not subsequently republished in the US within 30 days) on or after January 1, 1923 may be copyrighted in the US". That table is not an argument one way or the other. Or see The Cornell Copyright Chart, which states that works published outside the US before 1923 are PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you know Wikipedia:Public domain, which says "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more question — does English Wikipedia have a policy, which allows to place here images, which are non-free outside US, without a fair use rationale? Sealle (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. {{PD-US}} seems to make it pretty clear that's the rule here; there's no reason to assume the idiosyncratic Commons rules apply here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:24, 12 September 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:Ohm cartoon.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 ⚡ 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is used merely as an element of a photo gallery at Visual pun. Other images are free so it clearly also fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 20:26, 9 September 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.