Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13[edit]

File:Bay Lake Logo.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: convert to {{PD-FLGov}}. — ξ ^xplicit 07:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files marked as non-free may actually be free Not sure if this is Template:PD-FLGov or not. See also Reedy Creek Logo.png Elisfkc (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like; this seems to be a work of a municipal government and the statute applies not only to state government but also to the municipal ones.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the parent entity of these cities, Orange County, Florida or The Walt Disney Company? It says the cities are controlled by The Walt Disney Company, which sounds very strange and suggests to me that the cities are company-owned dictatorships, not something I would expect in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty unlikely Disney owns the municipal government. They probably own all the ground, properties and all the economy depends on them, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that they are governments, independent of the county and the company, that are basically Disney-controlled, since they own the land and let cast member (employees) that are friendly to the company's interest rent a home & vote. Here are two articles (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-cities-20150522-story.html & http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-01-12/business/0100130021_1_walt-disney-bay-lake-lake-buena-vista) Elisfkc (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added File:Reedy Creek Logo.png to list. Elisfkc (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reedy Creek Improvement District explains the situation. As Elisfkc said, while these entities are effectively units of Disney, they are legally units of government, so the PD template would seem to apply. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:33, 17 February 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:LYNX transportation logo.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: convert to {{PD-FLGov}}. — ξ ^xplicit 07:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File marked as non-free may actually be free Pretty sure Lynx (Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority) is a Florida government agency, and as such this file should be Template:PD-FLGov. Elisfkc (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lynx a government agency or a government-owned company? There seems to be very little information about this on the website. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter343/PART_II/ Elisfkc (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That page seems to be about the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, a government authority which is listed as the parent of Lynx according to our article. Lynx also has a separate board of directors and seems to be a separate entity. If Lynx also is a government authority, then my understanding is that the logo is PD-FLGov. If, on the other hand, Lynx is a company owned by the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, then it is my understanding that the logo probably isn't PD-FLGov. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - My understanding is that the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority does business as Lynx, as seen here on their annual report (see page 2, Our Vision). Elisfkc (talk) 20:44, 13 February 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:Trustee.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: keep File:George Weston Foods Logo.gif. — ξ ^xplicit 07:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These files seem to have some type of file corruption or something. Mediawiki can't display them, you have to display it in your web browser. Only one has any article use. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two other images in this nomination: File:George Weston Foods Logo.gif and File:Beth quist.gif. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's apparently an issue with MIME types, see mw:Manual:$wgTrustedMediaFormats. Something for the Village pump?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, MediaWiki won't let you display or preview files with disallowed MIME types for security reasons. George Weston Foods Logo.gif and Beth quist.gif are marked as being PHP scripts, and Trustee.png is marked as being a favicon. The question is, how did these images manage to get uploaded with the wrong MIME type? As for a fix, I would guess that deleting them and then re-uploading them would probably work. I'll leave them for now, though, in case anyone wants to investigate the root cause some more. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - They were uploaded with the wrong filename, as they are NOT pngs. This is reflected in their 'detected' mimetypes. MediaWiki isn't actually as strict on this front as many people assume. It's only really strict for mimetypes that it knows are bad/dangerous and for mimetypes that it allows to transclude into pages. But it won't stop you from lying and ignoring the warnings during upload for anything else. And for those two images of 2005/2006, well let's just say that we didn't even have checks at all back then :) (Actually this old content is part of the reason why we aren't too strict on mimetype checks, it would have required deleting lots of files at some point). If you want to keep some of this, you have to download them, convert them into something proper and reupload them. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha, I see that you're right about Trustee.png - I was confused because if you open it with Firefox then it will display it and say that it has a MIME type of "image/png". Ubuntu's image viewer, on the other hand, will refuse to open it, saying that it is not a PNG file. So it looks like MediaWiki's detection was correct, and that it is a favicon file. That means that we should delete it, as favicon files can't be displayed on wiki pages. If we really need it, it can be converted into a PNG and re-uploaded. If George Weston Foods Logo.gif and Beth quist.gif are needed then they can be deleted and re-uploaded and they should then work; if they're not needed, we should just delete them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete File:Trustee.png: it's just a red T with a trademark sign. It's unused and lacks encyclopædic use.

Delete File:Beth quist.gif as there is no evidence of permission. The image is also small and of low quality.

Keep File:George Weston Foods Logo.gif as it is in use in George Weston Foods. I have extracted the original GIF image from the PHP script and overwritten the file with that image. We should maybe delete the old revision for security reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 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:Wikipedia syntax and templates.TCL[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File in a strange file format. This file is an wiki-specific add-on for a non-free program, but it was made in 2004 and even then lacked support for key wikimarkup features. Because the software program in question is non-free, it's probably not suitable for commons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:58, 13 February 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:SvNEWTON.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't illustrate the topic in question (Mark of the Year). If there was a 2007 Mark of the Year article that would be OK, but the general article already has a couple of images. St Anselm (talk) 06:34, 13 February 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:Maggie Smith Othello 1965.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, a reader does not need to see a picture of an actor in a role to understand that they were nominated for an Oscar. January (talk) 10:54, 13 February 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:Frankenfurter.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, there is no discussion of this image or scene in the article. January (talk) 10:56, 13 February 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:Juhan Kukk.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file does currently shadow commons:File:Juhan Kukk.jpg which is a free file and illustrates the same person, making one wonder if the local fair use image should be deleted because of WP:NFCC#1. However, we ought to check if the copyright status of our image and that of Commons are both correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source indicated on Commons is dead, so the copyright status of the Commons file can't be verified. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stefan2: I've found this one by searching on Google. Not exactly the same image at first glance but checking the details (black dots, crosses etc.) makes me think they originate from the same photography. Falling asleep now though so I'll leave any detailed analysis to others.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:02, 14 February 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:Endesa.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is shadowing a Commons file which appears to be the actual up-to-date logo. The local copy should be deleted unless there are questions about the copyright status of the current version of the Commons file. I've replaced the logo in Endesa (Chile) because that sub-group uses a different logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a FUR for Endesa (Chile) but is currently used in Endesa (Spain) and both companies have different logos on their respective websites, so it's unclear which company this logo actually belongs to. The uploader didn't specify a source, so the file is currently in violation of WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our file seems to be an older logo which is no longer in use (and should thus be deleted under WP:NFCC#7 anyway).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 13 February 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:Joseph stalin body lies in state.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. We don't need a picture of Stalin's dead body in order to understand that he is dead. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 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:Rodger small.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png. — ξ ^xplicit 07:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, an image of a perpetrator does not help readers grasp the killings done by the perpetrator himself. In fact, a reader may understand the killings without this image and search this image outside Wikipedia. Other discussions similar to this resulted in "delete"; this image may share the same fate. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't make any harm at all. Also an image lets the reader fully grasp how the perpetrator looks like, for instance, what's his race like (being not fully white played a big role in his grievances). --87.110.93.102 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any harm from including the image, and I see possible benefits. The murderer Eliot Rodger said that women did not find him attractive, so I was vaguely curious what he looked like. Since he mentioned his own appearance, I think it is reasonable to include his photograph in an encyclopedia. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 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:Political world.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing info for this image, "self made" is incorrect, image is a copy of The CIA world factbook world map.

The CIA world factbook is Public Domain. This image is available with the correct licensing info on Commons.

The red annotations to this map are unexplained, and are not helpful for any of the uses of this image (the infobox discussed below displays the image too small for these to be visible). The commons image has no such annotations.

Although this image is used in a popular infobox, and is therefore on many userpages, deleting would not be disruptive as these uses would then load the superior commons image which this file currently shadows. LukeSurl^{t c} 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be any scope in the annotations at all and the local version is of lower quality than the Commons version and yet it takes up the straightforward title. I endorse the deletion of the local version.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:48, 13 February 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:Alieu Darbo Signing for Dinamo Zagreb.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published at http://www.afrope.se/tag/le-mans-fc/ in August 2013. Probably copyvio. Contributor has only added content related to Alieu Darbo. C 679 23:45, 13 February 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.