Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10[edit]

File:Sherman Oaks Elementary school photo 2.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sherman Oaks Elementary school photo 2.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2018 (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:Bataille Kasserine.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality CapnZapp (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2018 (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:Safi Airways logo.svg[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The result of the discussion was: Speedy Keep - Withdrawn. File was fixed so no need to continue with the discussion, the whole PDS thing should be discussed on the talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

No image is present ? (On my screen it's just a white blank area - if there is an actual image then I'll obviously withdraw) –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the file link on the file page, you'll see the "svg" - but it's not a proper svg - it's an embedded jpg, so no use as an svg file. I don't know why rsvg currently isn't rendering it, probably a version update, CommonsSvgChecker isn't giving any clues, but that scarcely matters because it's not a valid vector svg anyway.
The original file was overwritten on 9 August 2015, so someone with admin goggles needs to look at the version from 6 January 2015 to ascertain if that is a usable, valid svg. Benstown usually uploads decent files. I can't access the pdf linked in the file description to see if I can re-extract the svg, and http://www.safiairways.com don't seem to have paid their hosting bill... -- Begoon 15:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah that link shows the image, Ahhhh riiight, Well if it's any help there's an archived version of the PDF here (it takes a good 5-10 minutes to load but it loads!) ... So judging from your reply I'm assuming an admin will need to undelete the first revision ... which I'm assuming worked ?, Not sure, Anyway thanks for finding out the issue, –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've extracted the raster, and uploaded File:Safi Airways logo.png, so that at least the article will have something visible. We can sort out which file to delete later. I'll have a look at that pdf in a minute. -- Begoon 16:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-uploaded the original one, by mistake, over the one Begoon uploaded, I hadn't refreshed the page so i was still seeing the blank version on top. If you prefer, revert it. Sorry--Ben Stone 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 3 - I reverted it, not because there's any difference, but per NFC, even though nominal sizes of SVGs and NFC is a bit silly really.

The logo in that pdf is a different version, maybe an old version. I still can't access their website, but their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SafiAirways/ uses File:Safi Airways logo.png, so I'm leaving it like that for now. It's late here and I need to log off, but at least we have the 2 versions to choose from now. -- Begoon 17:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - There is now an image so as such I obviously withdraw, Thanks Begoon much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to PD-USonly--Ben Stone 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a wee bit of a stretch, with that swirly S-oval thing - but then I'm notably conservative in that area and think the US TOO and/or the way we interpret it is far too inconsiderate of artist/owner creative rights, so I'm probably not the best judge... -- Begoon 17:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the swirly S wasn't there PD would be fine but S makes it copyrighted/copyrightable .... so I've reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the S would make it not copyrightable. You could consider it a Yin-Yang less the dots which is PD. (See this). It's worth emphasizing that copyright-ability, isn't based on consensus, but the US copyright office guideline. Granted, i'm no expert on that, but i use their rejections as a guideline.--Ben Stone 18:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC) (edit. sorry if it's the wrong way of appending) Here is the US Copyright Office circular with the guidelines. Quote: Familiar symbols and designs, or a simple combination of a few familiar symbols or designs, are uncopyrightable and cannot be registered with the Office. It isn't a stretch to say that an 'S' in a circle is a simple combination. --Ben Stone 19:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Don't feel you need to prove anything, to me at least. I'm well aware of how the US judges these things, and how we interpret and use that. I have very little doubt that this will be deemed PD-USonly. When I said it was a bit of a stretch I was giving my opinion on how the creative rights of designers and companies all over the world are given short shrift by this mechanism, so it was really an off-topic grumble, not an opinion on how this case would be treated. I rarely offer this opinion, preferring to stick to working with the images rather than arguing about licensing. I'm actually resigned to the fact that our non-free content rules are so bizarre that we can take an image from anywhere in the world, deem it PD-USonly, and freely plaster it wherever we like, but we can't display a tiny thumbnail of a fair use image on the maintenance pages of the Graphics Labs in order to discuss/improve it or its use - it's one of the things that makes this place so endearing. That's about all the off-topic grumbling I have here, so carry on... -- Begoon 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the rant! I figured that while we were at it, it wouldn't be too off-topic. On a side note, while i agree creators should have proper protection, I have a friend working in a copyright office (not US), you would be surprised at the amount of non-creative/generic stuff that request copyright protection. If @Davey2010: agrees with my previous post, please revert to PD-USonly. Again, sorry about the rant! --Ben Stone 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the swirly S makes this copyrighted image so the current licences can stay. –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 14 January 2018 (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.

Non-free logos in "Bids for the 2014 Winter Olympics"[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: Remove from general bid articles and delete those not used anywhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free logos being used in Bids for the 2014 Winter Olympics whose uses do not comply with WP:NFCCP.

"File:Sochi 2014 Olympic bid logo.svg" was being used twice in the article (once in the main infobox and once in the "Candidate cities overview" subsection. A non-free use rationale was only provided for the main infobox use, so I removed the other one per WP:NFCCE. The use in the main infobox, however, does not seem to be needed because the same logo is also being used as the primary means of identification in the stand-alone article Sochi bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics. There's no critical discussion of the logo in the bid article and it's not really the logo per se of the bidding process, so the context for using it that article required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Even if the consensus is that the use in main infobox of the bid article use is NFCCP compliant, there's no way to justify another use later in the same article per WP:NFCC#3a. Suggest keep for the stand-alone article about the specific bid and remove from more general article about all of the bids.
"File:Salzburg 2014 Olympic bid logo.svg" and "File:Pyeongchang 2014 Olympic bid logo.svg" are also being used in the "Candidate cities overview" section and also in stand-alone articles about each respective bid. For the same reasons given above, there's really no need for these to be used in both articles. Suggest keep for each in their respective stand-alone articles, and remove from the general bid article.
"File:Jaca 2014 Winter Olympics bid logo.png", "File:Sofia 2014 Winter Olympics campaign logo.jpeg", "File:Almaty 2014 Olympic bid logo.jpg" and "File:Borjomi 2014 Olympic bid logo.jpg" are also being used in "Candidate cities overview" section. There are no stand-alone articles for these respective bids, but there is also no sourced critical commentary of any of these logos found in the 2014 bid article. Moreover, these logos are being used in a table format which is not really considered OK for non-free files per WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO because such usage tends to be primarily decorative. Unless someone is willing to add more specific content about each of these logos or create stand-alone articles about each respective bid, I cannot see how this type of non-free use can be considered NFCCP compliant. Unless the non-free content use issues of these files are resolved or they are converted to public domain or some suitible free license, I suggest delete for all these files.

This type of logo usage in some similar bid articles was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 8#Non-free logos in Bids for the 2020 Summer Olympics and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 17#Non-free logos in Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics and the consensus each time was to remove the non-free files from the more general bid articles, which I also feel is the case with respect to these logos as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2018 (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.