Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12[edit]

File:Louis Adolphe Billy.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: Move to a different name and allow Commonization. There are both sound arguments in favour of keeping and deleting the current image, but a convincing case in favour of un-shadowing the Commons file of the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons as c:File:Louis Adolphe Billy.jpg, also see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&curid=523680&diff=305970646&oldid=305970116. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename, I agree the file on Commons looks much better. — Jeff G. ツ 07:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do rename the en:WP file. But, if the rename creates a redirect from the old name, then the redirect should be deleted or there will still be a conflict with the identically-named Commons file. -- WikiPedant (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small to be useful. The picture on Commons is a lot better. I see little use for this picture unless a higher-resolution copy is obtained. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less than comfortable with deleting a historical image, even if it has no usage right now and is of marginal quality. This 19th-century fellow just won't be sitting for any more portraits. Better, I think, to rename it and move it to Commons. -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:31, 14 June 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:Charles Millican portrait.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Millican portrait.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update file page to indicate that it is used on the bio page of a person who is no longer alive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as file is sourced to the "University of Central Florida", but {{PD-FLGov}} says that "Florida state universities and state colleges […] are permitted to claim copyright (as well as trademarks) and any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted without clear evidence to the contrary". — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the UCF collections website, and the comment above is correct as to the copyright status, meaning that local use at en-Wiki must adhere to WP:NFC. However, WP:NFCI, #10, makes this file acceptable for use at the biography page. It should, however, be removed from the list page where it also appears. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone clarify for me why this is being discussed here and on Commons simultaneously? The image is on Commons, no, so that DR should be where discussion happens. Is this to evaluate a NFCC claim for use just on Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be easier to upload it separately with that claim? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the nominator could answer that best, but it looks to me like they nominated it (and the file directly below) because there was a discussion at Commons, without considering that the criteria here are different. I came to these discussions because the files were uploaded by a no-longer-active editor whose talk page I watch, but I do think they should be kept locally and deleted at Commons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file on Commons is currently licensed as Template:PD-US-1978-89. If that license is true it would override any NFC discussions here. Has this been considered here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying about the Commons tag, it's unclear to me how the deletion discussion at Commons is going to be resolved. Obviously, if they decide that the new license is valid, that would render the discussion here moot as "keep", since that was the nomination rationale. But if they delete it at Commons, then the NFC consensus here should be determining. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 June 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:Harold Hume portrait c 1940.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harold Hume portrait c 1940.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update file page to indicate that it is used on the bio page of a person who is no longer alive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as file is sourced to the "University of Florida", but {{PD-FLGov}} says that "Florida state universities and state colleges […] are permitted to claim copyright (as well as trademarks) and any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted without clear evidence to the contrary". — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the UCF collections website, and the comment above is correct as to the copyright status, meaning that local use at en-Wiki must adhere to WP:NFC. However, WP:NFCI, #10, makes this file acceptable for use at the biography page. It should, however, be removed from the list page where it also appears. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Commons file has been licensed as Template:PD-US-not renewed but it is under debate. Do people want to wait for that discussion to conclude?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying about the Commons tag, it's unclear to me how the deletion discussion at Commons is going to be resolved. Obviously, if they decide that the new license is valid, that would render the discussion here moot as "keep", since that was the nomination rationale. But if they delete it at Commons, then the NFC consensus here should be determining. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 June 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:Glenn Dumke.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glenn Dumke.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update file page to indicate that it is used on the bio page of a person who is no longer alive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeing as the copyright status of the file is under discussion on Commons as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tryptofish. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Commons file is currently tagged as "PD-US-not renewed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying about the Commons tag, it's unclear to me how the deletion discussion at Commons is going to be resolved. Obviously, if they decide that the new license is valid, that would render the discussion here moot as "keep", since that was the nomination rationale. But if they delete it at Commons, then the NFC consensus here should be determining. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 June 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.