Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

File:Hong Kong Cricket Association logo.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: remove from Hong Kong national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Hong Kong Cricket Association and Hong Kong national cricket team. File was also being used in Hong Kong women's national cricket team, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. File has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for "Hong Kong national cricket team", but generally the logo used by the main federation/association, etc. has not been allowed in individual team article per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI because the teams are considered to be child entities, regardless of whether they use the same logo. Although no non-free use rationale has been provided for "Hong Kong Cricket Association", it does seem according to its official website so adding a suitable nfur to comply with NFCC#10c does not seem problematic. The same cannot be said, however, for "Hong Kong women's national cricket team" because there would still be the number 17 issue to resolve. So, I suggest keep in "Hong Kong Cricket Association" and add a nfur for that particular usage, and remove from "Hong Kong national cricket team" as well as any other individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: it currently seems to be the Wikipedia standard for the logo/crest of a sports federation to be also used for the national team(s) of that sport – e.g. Brazil national football team, England national rugby union team. It would be best to have a broader discussion about whether that standard should be kept, rather than trying to go through every file. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those discussions feature only you and one or two other editors. FFD and NFC aren't exactly watched by many editors, and given how many pages this would effect, it would preferable to have as many participants as possible to establish a firm consensus. I would suggest starting a discussion at WT:NFCC, and then notifying related WikiProjects (WP:SPORT, WP:FOOTBALL, etc.). IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did participate in some of those discussions, but I am not an admin and the closing admin does have some discretion when they close. I also attempted to discuss this before at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17, but it got archived without a resolution. Similar discussions also took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#National Team Badges being removed. and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#Badges of reserve teams, but they were also archived. Moreover, it also appears to have been discussed in some detail at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2, but nothing was resolved and the policy remained unchanged (but that might've been before UUI#17). You can start another discussion if you like on WT:NFCC, perhaps an RfC, and see if it can finally be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marchjuly on a standard (consensus) being established through FFD discussions like this one. It seems reasonable to point to these discussions for consensus especially if clarification/amendment to the rule has been sought but those have been inconclusive.

As for this file, remove from all other articles and keep in Hong Kong Cricket Association (per UUI#17). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IgnorantArmies. Instead of trying to pick off "low hanging fruit" you will need to try again establish wider consensus. These individual discussions are only participated in by a tiny group of self-selecting nerds (with all due respect), so MarchJuly finding gullible admins to close a few in his favour does not amount to any serious consensus. It's trying to game the system via the back door and it's bordering on disruptive. Sevcoteehee (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Sevcoteehee (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Sevcohaha (talk • contribs). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 21 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:CricketCanada.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: remove from Canada national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Cricket Canada and Canada national cricket team. File was also being used in Canada women's national cricket team, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. File has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for "Canada national cricket team", but generally the logo used by the main federation/association, etc. has not been allowed in individual team article per number 17 of NFC#UUI because the teams are considered to be child entities, regardless of whether they use the same logo. Although no non-free use rationale has been provided for "Cricket Canada", it does seem according to its official website so adding a suitable nfur to comply with NFCC#10c does not seem problematic. The same cannot be said, however, for "Canada women's national cricket team" because there would still be the number 17 issue to resolve. So, I suggest keep in "Cricket Canada" and add a nfur for that particular usage, and remove from "Canada national cricket team" as well as any other individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 18 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:Cricket India Crest.svg

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 India national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Board of Control for Cricket in India and India national cricket team. File was also being used in India women's national cricket team, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls in Indian cricket grounds and 2015–16 Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy, but I removed it from those articles per WP:NFCC#10c. The file has non-free use rationales for "Board of Control for Cricket in India" and "India national cricket team", but the usage in the team article does not seem to comply with WP:NFCC per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Board of Control for Cricket in India" and remove from "India national cricket team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 18 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:PakistancricketBoard-logo.svg

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-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Pakistan Cricket Board and Pakistan national cricket team. File was also being used in Pakistan women's national cricket team, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c. The file has non-free use rationales for "Pakistan Cricket Board" and "Pakistan national cricket team", but the usage in the team article does not seem to comply with WP:NFCC per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Pakistan Cricket Board" and remove from "Pakistan national cricket team", unless this logo can be considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and OK to license as either {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 18 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:Bermuda Cricket Board (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: remove from Bermuda national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Bermuda Cricket Board and Bermuda national cricket team. File was also being used in Bermuda women's national cricket team ‎, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c. The file has non-free use rationales for "Bermuda Cricket Board" and "Bermuda national cricket team", but the usage in the team article does not seem to comply with WP:NFCC per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Bermuda Cricket Board" and remove from "Bermuda national cricket team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 18 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:CricScotnew.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: remove from Scotland national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Cricket Scotland and Scotland national cricket team. File was also being used in Scotland women's national cricket team, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. File has a non-free use rationale (nfur) for "Scotland national cricket team", but generally the logo used by the main federation/association, etc. has not been allowed in individual team article per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI because the teams are considered to be child entities, regardless of whether they use the same logo. Although no non-free use rationale has been provided for "Cricket Scotland", it does seem according to its official website so adding a suitable nfur to comply with NFCC#10c does not seem problematic. The same cannot be said, however, for "Scotland women's national cricket team‎" because there would still be the number 17 issue to resolve. So, I suggest keep in "Cricket Scotland" and add a nfur for that particular usage, and remove from "Scotland national cricket team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 18 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:Cricket kenya new logo.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: remove from Kenya national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Cricket Kenya and Kenya national cricket team. File was also being used in Kenya women's national cricket team ‎, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c. The file has non-free use rationales for "Cricket Kenya" and "Kenya national cricket team", but the usage in the team article does not seem to comply with WP:NFCC per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Cricket Kenya" and remove from "Kenya national cricket team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 18 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:AMC logo 2013.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 in AMC (TV channel), remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo was uploaded as non-free, but I'm wondering if this is too simple for copyright protection and can be licensed as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}} instead. Logo is currently being used in AMC (Asia), AMC (Europe), AMC (TV channel), but it only has non-free use rationales for the last two, and only the rationale for "AMC (TV channel)" seems to comply with WP:NFCC. If this can be changed to a free license, the logo can remain in all three articles since NFCC would no longer apply. If it needs to remain non-free, however, then I suggest keep for "AMC (TV channel) and remove from the other two articles per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 18 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:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg

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 in Brazilian Football Confederation, remove all other instances. I'm afraid the comments in regards to the inclusion of the logo in the team articles do not adequately address the non-free content policy concern raised by the nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Brazil national football team, Brazil national under-20 football team, Brazil women's national football team, Brazil women's national under-17 football team, Brazil women's national under-20 football team, and Brazilian Football Confederation. File only has non-free use rationales for "Brazil national football team", "Brazil national under-20 football team", "Brazil women's national football team" and "Brazilian Football Confederation" so WP:NFCC#10c is not satisfied for "Brazil women's national under-17 football team" and "Brazil women's national under-20 football team". In addition, the file's non-free usage was previously discussed in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and the close was to remove from all the individual team articles per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The file was removed from the team articles and their respective non-free rationales were removed from the file's page, only to be re-added to both at a later date. File was then discussed for a slightly different reason a second time at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and the UUI#17 concerns were mentioned, but the discussion was closed as "no consensus". So, per the Steel1943's instructions (the closer of the second NFCR discussion), I bringing this up for discussion here on FFD in the hope that it might be resolved.

Personally, I think the close of the first NFCR discussion was correct and made by an administrator, so it should still be in effect and the re-adding of the rationales and files was incorrect since WP:CLOSECHALLENGE was not followed. However, it also appears that the file's page was not tagged with {{Non-free reviewed}}, so one might not notice the first NFCR discussion unless they carefully scanned through the file's edit history or the article's editing histories. Anyway, I suggest keep for "Brazilian Football Confederation" and remove from all of the individual team articles. Pinging @Stefan2, Masem, and TLSuda: who participated in the first NFCR discussion and @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Savvyjack23, and Fma12: who participated in the second NFCR discussion as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the discussion linked above, and would like to second what user Fma12 says in that discussion, that *The* visual identity of all brazilian national teams, especially the main national team, is said crest. Add to the above the fact that the brazilian soccer team is one of the most prominent and recognizable. On the flip side, while technically it's the confederation's symbol, that entity is widely derided as a corrupt mess. So while on technical grounds (NFCR, etc.) it may be true that it's exclusively the confederation's logo, it is first and foremost the national team(s) crest. Think of it as the spirit vs. the letter of the law. I suggest keep for "Brazilian Football Confederation" and keep for all of the individual team articles.(Side rant: the discussion you mention, pretty much encapsulates what gets many people ticked off when trying to contribute to wikipedia: blind and mindless enforcement of rules on exclusively technical grounds) --Ben Stone 03:14, 23 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:Shaun Wallace.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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file issues CB2288 (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is listed as freely licensed. Are you saying that the file in fact is unfree? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, this same user has been trying to get this photo (and several others: File:Bobby Ball.jpg, File:Tommy Cannon.jpg, and File:Cannon and Ball.jpg) deleted for years, but he's never said why. Without a clear reason for deletion, I think we should Keep it. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, I see that this also was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 July 17#File:Shaun Wallace.jpg. The file was nominated by the same user as this time, and the nominator only included a signature but no reason for deletion on the discussion page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 18 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:Bangladesh Cricket Board Logo.svg

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 Bangladesh national cricket team. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Bangladesh Cricket Board and Bangladesh national cricket team. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but the one the nationale team does not seem to comply with WP:NFCC due to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Generally, individual national teams are considered to be child entities of their respective national governing body, so the logo of governing body is typically not allowed to be used in the team articles, even if they use the same logo. Suggest keep for "Bangladesh Cricket Board" and remove for "Bangladesh national cricket team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - every other test cricket national team has their logo in the infobox - so when you say this "is not typically allowed" you are seem to be at variance with the established consensus. If you want to bring about more wide-sweeping changes then for heaven's sake make another proposition and try to get consensus again, instead of targeting individual articles you think are vulnerable. Although you might (charitably) be described as a Wikignome, you are WAY past systemic bias and deep into overt bigotry territory now. Rangers died, Sevco lied (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Rangers died, Sevco lied (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Sevcohaha (talk • contribs). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- As pointed out in a similar discussion above, this type of usage has been discussed in previous NFCR/FFD discussions. As Finnusertop posted in their edit in the same thread, this is a way of establishing a standard. It's true that non-free logos, etc. are being used in many articles, but that's not an automatic guarantee that each such usage complies with WP:NFCC; it could be that those other usages are inappropriate. As for your claim of "bigotry" (see WP:NPA), I'm not sure where that comes from since we have had no interaction anywhere on Wikipedia prior to this. Your account was only recently created and shows no history of editing at FFD (or anything related to either this particular image or the articles where its usage is being discussed), so it's not clear where or how we might've crossed paths before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what I said applies here as well (thank you, Marchjuly); this is consensus building and working on a standard. Should be kept in Bangladesh Cricket Board and removed from Bangladesh national cricket team per WP:NFC#UUI 17. As for the lack of previous interaction with the username Rangers died, Sevco lied, they have been confirmed a sockpuppet of a master with multiple illegitimate accounts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 21 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:Jasons cradle.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing tag indicates that it is the work of the US Government, but it appears from this page that it is actually a work of the Hong Kong government. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hong_Kong, works made by an officer of the government are copyrighted for 125 years. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 18 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:Pahang123.svg

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. Issue has been resolved. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is being used in a table on 2016 Malaysia Super League that is full of non-free images. I doubt that WP:NFCC#8 is met with any of these there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2016 Malaysia Super League no longer contains non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 18 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:ACC-Uniform-FSU.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER and WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, are you suggesting this be deleted, or just removed from all season articles and left in Florida State Seminoles football? I agree with WP:NFC#UUI#14 in the season articles. But can you explain WP:FREER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnusertop (talk • contribs) 2016-02-18T18:07:27‎

This consists of a user-drawn picture combined with some logos. The user should have licensed his contribution to the picture instead of claiming that all rights are reserved. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this makes it fail WP:FREER. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 18 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.

2015 in SUPERKOMBAT

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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These violate WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#8 in 2015 in SUPERKOMBAT. They should only be used in separate articles about each individual event, if anywhere at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 18 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.