Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29[edit]

File:Igikpak.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igikpak.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:13, 29 January 2020 (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:Microfranchise picture2.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the naming of the image and the uploader user name and what little description there is implies this image is related to Microfranchising which doe snot have any images. However, there is no description as to what this is or what microfranchising endeavour this covers and as such is useless for use in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (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:Microfranchise picture.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 ⚡ 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the naming of the image and the uploader user name and what little description there is implies this image is related to Microfranchising which doe snot have any images. However, there is no description as to what this is or what microfranchising endeavour this covers and as such is useless for use in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (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:BYU Microfranchise - The Beauty of Africa.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 ⚡ 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no obvious encyclopedic use FASTILY 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the naming of the image and the uploader user name and what little description there is implies this image is related to Microfranchising which doe snot have any images. However, there is no description as to what this is or what microfranchising endeavour this covers and as such is useless for use in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (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:Eurostar icon.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: PD-ineligible-USonly is applicable, so I've updated the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY 07:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Template:Rail-interchange. The file would only meet WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Eurostar. Copyright violation and/or Possibly unfree file. The file is most likely a copyvio, as it's doubtful that this derivative (of File:NewEurostarLogo.svg) would pass Commons:TOO UK. Also, it was uploaded as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and the creator most certainly does not hold the copyright to the design. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as has been pointed, out I can now see the issue that has been raised upon reflection. At the time of creation & upload, I believed this work would be fine to use - due the fact I had self-created it to have a resemblance to the original "e" motif seen in File:NewEurostarLogo.svg; However I can see the potential issues now they have been raised.
One issue I would see is that the complete removal of this file would have wide effects accross many pages as the icon (

{{rint|eurostar}} ) appears on many page through its use on route map templates, Therfore I would like to propose an alternative; which is to upload an alternative file, which (I believe) will both 1. not infrenge copyrights, yet 2. still mildy resemble the eurostar motif for recognisability. I'd appreceate opinions on this idea and have already created an altenative file which is now ready to upload preview if requested/deemed necessary. Regards, Jordan8396.ja (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you have been informed, copyrights restrictions in the UK are strict. A free alternative can be easily made (its essentially just an italicized "e" with a tilde "~") and licensed under {{PD-simple}}. (As a side note, if you are going to make one, please do not make a raster image and save it as an SVG, as is the case with File:Eurostar icon.svg) Pbrks (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks and AlgaeGraphix:, I have upladed the rework as File:Eurostar Icon rework1.png, and would appricate your, and any other editor's, input as to whtere this is a suitble replacement for File:Eurostar icon.svg. I personally think yes, but would prefer a more experienced editor's opinion. Thanks, Jordan8396.ja (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurostar Icon rework1.png is probably acceptable. However, I would make the colour darker, as lighter shade4s tend to disappear at small sizes. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more discussion on whether the file is actually copyrighted, as we don't use UK copyright law for making this determination; only US law counts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. All of the discussed files (File:NewEurostarLogo.svg, File:Eurostar icon.svg, File:Eurostar Icon rework1.png) are above c:COM:TOO UK. File:Eurostar icon.svg is certainly below it in the US. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finnusertop. It's far too simple to be eligible for copyright. XeroxKleenex (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (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:HofmanMadonna1909.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: no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HofmanMadonna1909.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Author - Wlastimil Hofman died in 1970, therefore painting is not in public domain yet Oleola (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} might apply. Wikiacc (¶) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (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:CadmusStamp.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. The photograph itself might be PD by age, but the drawing of a ship in the bottom right corner probably isn't free. If someone can provide evidence indicating that the drawing is freely licensed, then we can restore this image -FASTILY 08:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, where the image was copied from, this stamp was issued in 2015, not 1899. It's probably under copyright. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad i thought it was issued when the ship sunk as a commemoration to the ship. Its a stamp though i dont think it would be under copyright?Articute (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this stamp was also previously discussed here where I wrote: Indeed this stamp was issued on 17 December 2015 per this webpage (near the bottom of the page) and this Flickr image is the same one used for the stamp. It is possible the ship image is in the public domain, as crown copyright, considering it is in Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1 per this webpage showing the same image. The additional text seems too simple to obtain a new copyright. If it is keep the license will need to be updated. ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ww2censor. I'd say that "picclick.co.uk" has inappropriately, and incorrectly, dated the copyright tag. Until we hear otherwise, I see no basis for trusting "picclick.co.uk" as correct per them not being a reliable source. Looks like a legitimate stamp from 1901, which would be free of copyright. As well, certain stamps may be subject to Crown copyright, which permit, as I understand it (Diannaa can clarify) re-use for non-commercial purposes (which Wikimedia would seem to qualify, unless it's making money off of Wikipedia somehow ;-)). That may be less desirable for Wikimedia's purposes, since they notionally seem to want CC-BY-SA licensing, but it's nonetheless a valid non-free licensing option. Nevertheless, I suspect this is public domain. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The stamp can't be a 1901 stamp, since it states on the corner "Ships of WWI", which took place later (1914-1918). (The photo of the ship was likely taken in 1901.) Crown copyright does not apply, because it's a Liberian stamp, not a British one. Both Stampworld and picclick.co.uk say it's a 2015 stamp. We can't keep the stamp as fair use, because it's not currently in use in any articles. So it's either copyrignt, property of the Liberian Government, or the added embellishments are not enough to generate a new copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Diannaa: not free and orphaned. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only copyrightable component is the photograph, and any potential copyright is long expired. XeroxKleenex (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stamp is not from 1901 and the photograph is not the only element in this stamp to consider as there is a white line drawing of a ship in the lower right corner of the stamp which is copyrightable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2020 (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:CBM CBM Joint Bolt.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 ⚡ 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused, likely still fully protected under copyright. See: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Not fred999 FASTILY 09:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the oversight. I don't have anything to add beyond what's in the link you've included. Not fred999 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (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:Padlock-black.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These files were formerly used as padlock icons in protection templates, but are no longer widely used and thus the local copies are no longer needed. Also, in many cases the identical underlying Commons files are upload protected. If these get deleted, they also ought to be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (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:Padlock-skyblue.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a widely used file, but it's not used in any critical area and the underlying Commons file is upload protected. Probably can be removed and delisted from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. Listing this separately from the other old padlock files as it's a bit more widely used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (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.