Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 30

< October 29	October 31 >

October 30[edit]

File:Capture the Crown - Reign of Terror - Deluxe 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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #3a. We have the normal version as well (File:Capture the Crown - Reign of Terror.jpg). Two separate copyrighted album covers are not necessary. One conveys the same information. Majora (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no sourced commentary about the deluxe edition cover and it is substantially similar to the regular cover so only one is needed. --Whpq (talk) 23:27, 30 October 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:Buried in Verona - Notorious Reloaded.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #3a. We already have the normal album cover (File:Buried in Verona - Notorious.jpg). Two separate copyrighted album covers are not necessary. One conveys the same information. Majora (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two album covers are not needed to identify this recording --Whpq (talk) 23:29, 30 October 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:Crown the Empire - The Fallout (Deluxe Reissue).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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #3a. We have the normal version as well (File:Crown the Empire - The Fallout.jpg). Two separate copyrighted album covers are not necessary. One conveys the same information. Majora (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two album covers are not needed to identify this recording -- Whpq (talk) 23:31, 30 October 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:David Jon Kassan "Letter to my mom".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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP #8. Not directly about the artist (not self-portrait). And section it is in is not about painting. Majora (talk) 01:15, 30 October 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:Lil Yachty article photo.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 F9 by MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No information given MB298 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: Copyvio. Tagged F9. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 30 October 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.

Taiwanese municipal election logos[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 both Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos being used in a decorative manner in Taiwanese municipal elections, 2010. Files are basically being used as icons in tables within the article which is a type of usage that does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFTABLES and is not allowed as explained in MOS:LOGO. There do not appear to be any stand-alone articles for the parties whose logos these are, so suggest delete unless they qualify for some sort of public domain license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 30 October 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:File name.ext[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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Error: You must replace File_name.ext with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. OrdishP (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is obsolete in that Sir Stephen O'Rahilly would like to replace it with a more recent image.

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:C145681Pol23.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: Procedural close. Duplicate nomination. Majora (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unused test image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already ffd-ed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 28#File:C145681Pol23.png :) --XXN, 22:13, 31 October 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:Exocast.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unused test image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. --XXN, 22:18, 31 October 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:Mysignaturechris2014.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unused test image used only on a page I'm nominating for deletion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. --XXN, 22:18, 31 October 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:AtreonTechLogoTestSandbox.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unused test image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. --XXN, 22:18, 31 October 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:MicrowareTechnologiesSandbox.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old unused test image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. --XXN, 22:18, 31 October 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.

Italo Brutalo images[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: Deleted by Explicit Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two identical images have conflicting source information. The first states that the image is not the uploader's own work and was sent to them. The image is attrinbuted to Italo Brutalo who is also the subject of the photo. There is no evidence of permission. When this was tagged for lack of evidence of permission, the second photo was uploaded with the claim of own work. The switch of source based on a pending deletion is suspicious. Furthermore, the EXIF shows the author as Hannes H?chsmann. I very much doubt the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed in the second image, and the EXIF conflicts with the claim in the first image. Whpq (talk) 17:43, 30 October 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:Coat of arms of nzapalainga.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, also because of the extremely low image quality Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly fuzzy coat of arms. Claimed as own work but that makes no sense as it is supposed to be the coat of arms for Archbishop Dieudonné Nzapalainga. Uploader has a history of copyvios so doubt own owrk. Whpq (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has left a message on my talk page stating that the images are indeed either scanned or copied from the web. I suppose one might be able to make some claim for usage as non-free content, but I personally don't see that. However, I have let the uploader know about non-free content and its criteria for use. If there is no claim made for fair use, then these are clear copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: copyright image, source does not link to page for the image and uploader has admitted work is not theirs. ww2censor (talk) 12:26, 2 November 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:Santorelli after his first goal with Geneva.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non free image of a hockey player scoring a goal. There is no sourced commentary about the photo and the photo adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:18, 30 October 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:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.pdf[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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. Removed the frame and reuploaded to Commons. See File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.png. Changed out all the image links to the new version. This can be deleted now. Majora (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majora, this seems to have removed all the formatting (zooming in on only certain parts of the image) from the articles in which I placed the image. Also, will the creative commons license that I forwarded, the ticket for which has still not been dealt with, be disrupted by this change? Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this work is not "in the public domain because it is pre-1923." It is a recent photograph, and I have forwarded permissions for it from the photographer, who needs to be credited, and isn't in your version, to the wikipedia permissions address. If your objection is the pdf image format, let me fix that and re-forward the permissions. Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhighandeep: The OTRS ticket is not necessary as the work is in the public domain (as is the photograph). Thank you for pointing it out though. I have switched the copyright tag to the correct one. As for the zooming in on certain parts of the image, my apologies, but that doesn't seem all that necessary to me. If you want to redo it you are more than welcome to. --Majora (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora:, this image, which I uploaded, is a recent photograph, and it is not "in the public domain because it is pre-1923." The owner (the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies) has released the rights under the CC 4.0 license, which requires that they be acknowledged as author, which they are not in your version. Also, the license from the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies has not yet been processed, and a link to the image needs to be in the license email. I have re-uploaded the image as a jpg without a frame (rather than as a pdf, which I think was your objection) at File:Mosaic_of_the_Female_Musicians.jpg, and have resent the license email for this new properly attributed photo. Your version, which does not credit the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies, needs to be deleted. This is important, because there is another photograph of this mosaic on the web by a professional photographer, who would not give us rights to use it on wikipedia when asked, so we need to make it clear how we got this image. Thanks! Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhighandeep: You don't seem to understand how copyright works. That's alright, it is a complex area. You can't take a photo of something that is in the public domain and suddenly claim copyright on it. That mosaic was created in the 6th century, per the source. Therefore, it is in the public domain. You can take all the photos you want of it, that doesn't matter one bit. You can't claim copyright on them. Period. So I'll just go mark the photo you just uploaded for deletion as well. --Majora (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: this is not true. Professional photographers have copyright to their photos. Please do not do this. Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain to you how it works here. If you choose to ignore me that is your choice. I'm going to follow the rules and policies that we have, here, on Wikipedia and on Commons. You can do what you wish. --Majora (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: There is a professional photographer with a photo of this mosaic on the web who will not allow us to use it. We must be clear about the origin of the image. Photos are copyrighted. Thanks for pointing out that the original pdf format is deprecated. Piledhighandeep (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here, before doing anything, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mosaic_of_the_Female_Musicians.jpg#File:Mosaic_of_the_Female_Musicians.jpg Piledhighandeep (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last thing to the closer. Piledhighandeep's claims that the image is in any way copyrighted amounts to copyfraud. --Majora (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF is the wrong file format for this. It should be JPEG. And it is obviously old enough to be on Commons. Yann (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All worked out. Full image updated and now on Commons as File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.jpg --Majora (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Piledhighandeep I think you are correct in saying Professional photographers have copyright to their photos, but think that would only apply if this photograph would be considered a derivative work in which the photographer added some creative element to what was being depicted. For example, if this was a photo of a sculpture, then you might be able to argue that the angle at which the photo was taken, etc. would represent the photographer's creativity since the photographer probably took into account various elements before taking the photo. I don't believe the same can automatically be said for a photo of a 2D work of art, especially from a straight on perspective where the entire photo itself is the work of art. If there were other elements depicted within the photo such as the surrounding area, etc., then maybe you could argue that some creativity was involved and the photo can be copyrighted even though the 2D work is in the public domain. That does not seem to be the case at all here, and the photo and the work of art depicted are basically one and the same. It seems really hard to argue that even a professional photographer adds any creative element to an image by basically just standing in front of a PD 2D work of art and taking a picture of it as explained in c:COM:ART#Original work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and understand now. In general photographs are copyrighted, but c:COM:ART#Original work perfectly fits the current image. I had just found this myself, but thank you for pointing me to it! Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:31, 31 October 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:Jamison - anquite mind.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically but just inserted into her bio page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 30 October 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.