Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15

File:GMK logo small.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: Deleted. We have a minority opinion that the image is free so perhaps it is can can be loaded as such on commons. As currently licenced image fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo currently be used in WTVQ-DT#News operation. File has a non-free use rationale, but this type of decorative usage is not allowed per WP:NFCC#8. It's possible that this logo may be too simple to be protected by copyright and a candidate for free licensing using {{PD-logo}} and tagging with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. It should be removed from the article, however, if it can only be used as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the colour effects are copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the fade in/out of color would be a factor if this was combined with other effect like the letters looking 3D and or shine. But given that the text and the the underline are so unlikely to be considered as copyrightable factor, the color fade in/out is not going to do it on its own. Rybkovich (talk) 04:50, 16 January 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:Bryant alt logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Bryant Bulldogs wordmark.png has replace this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:01, 15 January 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:Coppin State Wordmark.gif

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 ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; c:File:CSU Athletics wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:53, 15 January 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:WSVNlogo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free screenshots/screen captures of news opens, etc. taken from YouTube and other site which are being used in articles about TV stations. Purely decorative usage since none of these images are really the subject of any sourced commentary at all within their respective articles and also are not needed for the reader to understand that these stations offer news programming at certain times of the day or used a certain logo at one point in time. All of these should be removed per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 15 January 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:Tombaugh Lapaz 3 3 1954.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo being used in Green fireballs#Anomalous satellites (mid-1950s), Lincoln LaPaz#UFO investigations, and Clyde Tombaugh#Near-Earth satellite search. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but the claim that this non-free image is needed because it is "a historically significant photo of an important meeting between two famous individuals" does not really satisfy WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image is not needed for the reader to understand that Tombaugh and LaPaz met and worked together. Purely decorative usage which should be removed for sure from "Clyde Tombaugh" and "Green fireballs". It's possible, however, that this could be used as the primary means of identifying LaPaz in "Lincoln LaPaz" since he is deceased, but if that's the case then the relevant non-free use rationale would need to be revised accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 15 January 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:Liberace performs at Red Rocks Amphitheatre, CO 1954.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with its placement in Red Rocks Amphitheatre. The event depicted in this image is not explained where it is placed. Steel1943 (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: so what if it's not explained? It is self-explanatory as it has the date, performer and location all under the Performances section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglywiggley (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fair use rationale claims it is being used at the top of the biography to identify the person. Clearly, it is not being used this way. There are free images of both the theatre and Liberace so it is also replaceable regardless of which article it might be used for. -Whpq (talk) 17:46, 17 January 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:KK Hemofarm 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo of KK Vršac when the team was named the same. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 since the logo is not the topic of discussion at its placement. Steel1943 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the issue, the club was know by a different name for 20 years, the logo represents that club. Like the current logo does the current club. Same justification applies in both cases, what's the issue? If the current club logo passes WP:NFCC#8, why doesn't the old one pass? I would understand if the club was under a different name only for a couple of seasons, but this is 20 years. Curious not arguing. Rybkovich (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rybkovich: From my understanding of previous similar discussions, old logos should only be included in an article if the logo itself is the topic of discussion in the section/paragraph where it is placed (WP:NFCC#8.) Explaining that the team used to be called "Hemofarm" can be explained by text alone. (WP:NFCC#1: Text contributions by editors are released under a free license, whereas this file is non-free). Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 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:KK Cibona Zagreb.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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in KK Cibona. There is already a logo in the infobox, and this emblem itself does not seem to be discussed as a topic in the least. Steel1943 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 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:TaosMountain12.tif

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 ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this was converted to a huge TIF. The original JPG, which is a lot smaller, is available as File:Taos Mountain at Sunset (2973710102).jpg. I suggest that we delete this copy and replace all usage with the JPG. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was new to Commons when I uploaded this image, and there is no reason for us to host a huge TIFF file when a JPG will work just fine. KDS4444^Talk 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given (as well as WP:CSD#G7).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 21 January 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:Kevin-Prince Boateng (shooting to goal) – A.C. Milan vs. Real Madrid 2012 (cropped).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Kevin-Prince Boateng (shooting to goal) – A.C. Milan vs. Real Madrid 2012.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 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.