Wikipedia:Files for discussion

XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 3 4 104 0 111
TfD 0 0 7 0 7
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 13 16 0 29
AfD 0 0 17 0 17

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list hereEdit

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2020 December 5}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2020 December 5}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2020 December 5}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1927, not 1921.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participationEdit

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussionsEdit

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussionsEdit

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

November 27

File:Metal 2 Logo.png

[edit]

File:Metal 2 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 17jiangz1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo that could be replaced with commons image per WP:NFCC. It should only be kept if doesn't meet the Threshold of Originality (which I think it does). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, not sure how you could replace a copyrighted software logo with a free image. I think it has enough going on to not fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Salavat: The commons image is a former logo of Apple Metal that doesn't meet the TOO. That's why I think this fair use image should be replaced by it. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If it is a former logo then I don't think it accurately represents the product anymore. The infobox should contain the most up to date logo for identification. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Aint Nobody.jpg

[edit]

File:Aint Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I originally PRODded the cover art early this year because I didn't think it would meet WP:NFCC#8. However, it was de-PRODded under an assertion that it passes NFCC and that the notability of LL Cool J's interpolation of "Ain't Nobody" wouldn't be well understood without the cover art. On the contrary, I thought a free image of the artist who did the interpolation would be adequate enough.

This cover art displays primarily the eponymous characters of Beavis and Butt-Head but as part of virtue of the branding, marketing, and identification information conveyed by the cover art. I appreciate the graphic artist and distributor's efforts, but I'm unsure whether the cover art is necessary to help me understand the original song by Rufus and Chaka Khan and the hip-hop interpolation.

I can already understand what critical commentary about the interpolation conveys without the cover art. Furthermore, I can adequately understand the interpolation's chart performance in some areas of Western Europe, upper North America, and New Zealand. Even I can already understand the hip-hop interpolation's potential notability, despite not having its own stand-alone article. I still don't understand why the notability of LL Cool J's cover version would be lost without the cover art. There have been already other cover versions since versions by Rufus and Chaka Khan, so I don't understand why the Beavis & Butt-Head cover art is necessary... unless it's merely about visual identification of the product? --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Further note: The cover art also contains song title and artist's name, but those don't ease my concerns about the cover's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an album cover of a notable cover version that if it was the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. There are six notable versions of the song with seven files in use in the article, with the original version having two files. By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions, I feel that all of the files pass WP:NFCC. I also have never seen someone argue that a free picture of the artist could replace a fair use of a song/album cover in the article about the song/album, so I do not think this is a valid argument for the cover's deletion. Aspects (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Quoting Aspects: By only nominating this file, you are saying that all of the others pass WP:NFCC#8 when your nomination could apply to the other four cover versions[...] Actually, this is a test nomination out of cover arts of notable cover versions. For consistency, I plan to nominate other non-free cover arts afterwards if this cover art gets deleted. (File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is US-only free per another FFD discussion, so I won't touch that for now.) Regarding notability of cover versions, I commented at another FFD discussion where cover arts and notability may or may not connect well. To rephrase what I said there, using a very, very minimal amount of fair-use cover art has been strongly encouraged. The matter is not whether a cover version is notable but rather whether a cover art (or rather visual identification) is necessary and whether deleting a cover art would impact the understanding of the cover version, even when notable (and the notable original version).

    Furthermore, I'm not gonna put a free image as part of the section's infobox but rather underneath/below the infobox. In one case, after a cover art was deleted per another FFD discussion, I then added a free image of the artist at Something's Got a Hold on Me#Jessica Mauboy version... just underneath the infobox out of respect for the infobox itself. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC); forgot something, 21:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    If one example isn't enough, then what about another FFD discussion, where a section of an article no longer uses the cover art? George Ho (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Battlelive.jpg

[edit]

File:Battlelive.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miece (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like a promo image, professional live shot, or screencap from a music video or live performance - likely a copyright violation. I've dug through Google Images and Youtube but can't find an exact match. The uploader has history of uploading copyrighted music-related images as own work. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

File:LV Andrassy Budapest.jpg

[edit]

File:LV Andrassy Budapest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ryanbpest95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Questionable CC license, possible copyright violation. The deeplink source is still valid, but I can't find where the image is/was used on the site, which is in Hungarian. No evidence that the site has/had a CC license.

Note: Additional images by same uploader nominated here and through obvious copyright violations and proposed deletion proceses for similar reasons.  ★  Bigr Tex 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

November 22

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg

[edit]

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Similar images using the symbols of Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (aka Led Zeppelin IV) are used at Commons, like File:Zoso-square-layout.svg and File:Zoso.svg. Local copies (File:Zzzp.JPG and File:Zzzp2.JPG) were deleted on the common assumption that those hand-drawn symbols are automatically in the PD. However, I can't be certain about its copyright status, which I shall primarily discuss.

Before transferring the vinyl's side label to Commons, we shall discuss whether the hand-drawn symbols are either no different from (i.e. inspired by or exact copies of) the symbols taken (or extracted) from centuries-old original publications or something that I find hard to describe (besides being possibly eligible for copyright). If the former, then they should be in the public domain in both countries. If the latter, then the symbols mixed with the side label must comply with both c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO UK. The logo of Edge (magazine) has been found by UK's lower court to be original enough for copyright, setting the standard bar very low and causing other UK logos to no longer be eligible. If this image is to be deemed ineligible for Commons, then other images of those symbols will be affected. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the image is to demonstrate that the "four symbols" was the actual title of the album as marketed by Atlantic at the time. The other images only show what the images are. This does not help the reader at all. SethWhales talk 06:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
What about the copyright status of the side label? I can assume that you view the image as non-free in the US, right? George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. 100% non-free. SethWhales talk 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I would keep File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg and File:Zoso.svg. Delete File:Zoso-square-layout.svg, as it is just a square layout and not even what was printed on the... is that a vinyl or a cd? — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@WinnerWolf99: File:Zoso.svg and File:Zoso-square-layout.svg are at Commons right now, but I'll undelete the local copies of those files (if they available) once we're done with the vinyl label then. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If You Asked Me To (Patti LaBelle)

[edit]

File:If You Asked Me To.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:If You Asked Me To by Patti LaBelle US cassette.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both are almost the same image, and using images that replicate each other may be discouraged per WP:NFCC#3a. I prefer more the US cassette single (discogs) because the Patti LaBelle version charted in only the US AFAIK. However, if anyone here prefers the square-ish version, which was released outside the US, then please declare. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that File:If You Asked Me To by Patti LaBelle US cassette.png has more text and pictures than File:If You Asked Me To.jpg, so delete the latter and keep the former. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You mean, keep the square-ish one, and delete the US cassette, right? George Ho (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The exact oppsite, actually. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 03:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Be Happy (Mary J. Blige song)

[edit]

File:Be Happy (Mary J. Blige song).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Be Happy by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Both images are (almost) the same, so we shall decide whether to keep either the (non-US) square-ish variant or the US cassette one. I more prefer the US cassette variant because the song charted on Billboard and was targeted toward US customers primarily. At that time, presumably, single CDs weren't prevalent in the US at that time. On the other hand, the single also charted in Australia and the UK. I predict that the square-ish variant would be favored more because of consistency with most other singles, but I welcome input. George Ho (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

November 19

File:Madonna - get together.ogg

[edit]

File:Madonna - get together.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The article "Get Together (Madonna song)" was de-listed as Good Article. Particularly, one commented that the sample fails WP:NFCC#8. I PRODded the sample for that reason, but then the uploader de-PRODded it, so I'm taking it here. Furthermore, the "Composition" section of the article, even with improvement on caption, even neither sufficiently supports the sample nor is difficult to understand without the sample. I struggle to figure out why the sample is necessary for illustration unless it's about either recognition or trying to compete with websites providing music samples, like Amazon, AllMusic, and iTunes/Apple Music. IMHO, neither mere sample recognition nor competition with third-party websites would help the sample adequately comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8). Furthermore, IMHO even references to other songs (explicit or implicit) don't make the sample necessary and significant. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The sample illustrates how the song sounds like, which is its main purpose. I doubt one can imagine how a "tripping vocal melody" sounds like without help from an audio file. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

File:SDU BLACK RGB.png

[edit]

File:SDU BLACK RGB.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JakeyPotter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not too simple for copyright. Likely eligible for fair use. Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

File:SaintDismas.png

[edit]

File:SaintDismas.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jzsj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file was originally uploaded as non-free content for use in Saint Dismas Prison Ministry which seems acceptable per item 2 of WP:NFCI. The "San Dismas Prison Ministry" article, however, was subsequently redirected to Religion in United States prisons#Catholicism and the image was moved along with the rest of the content to the new article in Janaury 2020. Shortly, thereafter, in February 2020, I converted the file's licensing from non-free to {{PD-logo}} since it seem too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States; I also tagged the file with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} per WP:MTC. The file was moved to Commons as c:File:SaintDismas.png by Sreejithk2000 on November 15, 2020, but was deleted a few days later by a Wikipedia/Commons administrator named Magog the Ogre a few days later per c:COM:F1. Magog the Ogre then restored the local file's non-free licensing.

All of the above is fine; I was WP:BOLD in converting the license to PD, but if Commons can't keep it and it needs to be non-free, then that's OK. The problem, however, is that file's non-free use doesn't really comply with the WP:NFCCP any more in the redirected "Saint Dismas Prison Ministry" and its non-free use in Catholic Church in the United States#Prisons (by template transclusion) certainly doesn't comply with the NFCCP; so, as non-free content, one use is quite questionable and the other use is completely unacceptable.

Non-free content is often uploaded for use in stand-alone articles which are subsequently redirected/merged into other articles for reasons that have nothing to do with non-free content use; in most cases, such as in this case, there is almost no reassessment of the file's non-free use and it almost always has problems with WP:NFCC#8 because it's no longer being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about whose organization the logo is intended to represent. It seems that the content about the Ministry was redirected to the article as an attempt to preserve it per WP:CHEAP because someone felt the ministry did not meet WP:NORG. That's fine, but again that changes the justification for the file's non-free use. I don't think this file can be kept if it needs to be licensed as non-free in either the "Catholic Church" or the "Religion in United States prisons" articles since those respective uses no longer meet WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. If someone wants to restore the stand-alone article about the ministry and use the there, then that would be OK; that, however, a discussion that would need to take place somewhere else and the file can be restored per WP:REFUND if that's what ends up happening. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: if you'd like to appeal the decision at Commons, you can do so at c:Commons:Undeletion requests. Magog the Ogre (tc) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. See c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SaintDismas.png --Sreejith K (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg

[edit]

File:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobyjamesaus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Let's decide whether the image, currently used at Pump Up the Jam#M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy version, is free in both the United States (c:COM:TOO US) and its home country, Germany (c:COM:TOO Germany). If in both, then transfer it to Wikimedia Commons. If free in the US but not Germany, then {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If unfree in the US, then the image must either comply with NFCC, including "contextual significance" criterion (#8) (i.e. more than just "mark as non-free"), or be deleted.

IMO the cover art itself doesn't look original enough for the US copyright protection. I see computerized font and plain colors and shapes, i.e. nothing out of ordinary to me. But unsure whether it is original enough in Germany. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems to be below c:COM:TOO United States, but my guess is that's probably not the case for c:COM:TOO Germany; so, perhaps {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be OK. However, even as non-free, I'm not sure that it's use in Pump Up the Jam fails WP:NFCC#8 as is being suggested. While it's true that the use of album cover art for purely identification reasons (i.e. absent specific critical commentary about the cover itself) in sections of articles is generally not allowed as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, articles about songs per common practice also tend to include content about cover versions. Even in cases where a cover version of a song might be Wikipedia notable in its own right per WP:NSONG, separate articles tend to not be created and all the content about the song (including cover versions) tends to be added to the same article for encyclopedic reasons per WP:SONGCOVER. The question then is whether this particular cover version would be Wikipedia notable in its own right per NSONG. If it is, then an allowance seems to be generally made to allow the use of its cover art in the same manner as if it were being used in a stand-alone article. Reaching number 16 in Germany seems to meet criterion #1 for NSONG, but that same criterion also states that charting nationally is not sufficient on its own for establishing Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    Reading WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER, I don't see either one mentioning images explicitly. The one coming in mind is MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, saying that free content is preferred, yet they can allow acceptable fair use content that fits enwiki's standards. From my experience, usually, a side label or a cover art of the original recording's single release is the lead image of a song article because an original recording is well known. Then cover versions arrive. Usually (to me), if a cover version can't have its stand-alone article, then a song article covering the original and cover version(s) should have minimal amount of images as possible. In some cases, if an original is lesser known and more obscure, then a cover version would make the same song popular (e.g. All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song) and (They Long to Be) Close to You), thus making an image of a release of the cover version a more suitable lead image. In some cases, we have critical commentary covering the original and cover versions more extensively, like Love Don't Live Here Anymore and I Will Always Love You.

    Back to this image, in this case, I tried finding third-party sources discussing the Real McCoy version of the song in databases of Wikipedia Library, but found none from those databases as of date. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    Usually (to me), if a cover version can't have its stand-alone article, then a song article covering the original and cover version(s) should have minimal amount of images as possible. is pretty much what I said above. I'm not suggesting that the cover art of a cover song is automatically OK in all cases; only that it's probably OK in cases where the cover version could support a stand-alone article, even if that article is just a stub, because it's deemed notable in its own right. It's not surpprising that there's no mention of images in NSONG because images have nothing to do with the Wikipedia notability of a song. Perhaps something could be added to SONGCOVER (like for example was done in WP:FILMSCORE), but SONGCOVER is a WikiProject guideline and it's up to the WikiProject to add it if it feels such information is relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative cover arts of Pump Up the Jam (album)

[edit]

File:Technotronic Pump Up The Jam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Redfive05 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Technotronic featuring Ya Kid K.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MuzikJunky (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An uploader de-PRODded the cover art of the 1992 reissue, writing: This is the ONLY album art you can get a copy of these days of this title. However, I don't think scarcity can help the cover art comply with NFCC, including WP:NFCC#8. Having more than one cover art must be reflected by critical commentary in order to make the cover art necessary and too significant to be deleted. However, I don't see that's the case here. Rather, I think, the album art was used merely as one of visual identifiers of the album, normally discouraged by WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#Number of items. I can say the same about the US album art listed here, but it was used for the original US release in 1989/1990. Still, even when the album was successful globally, including the US, the band was Belgian. The standard (European) artwork should reflect that and be the sole lead image. I further don't see why else more than one cover art is needed in this case. George Ho (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep As the album was released with one artwork initially, but, for all further releases, the artwork was changed. The differences are significant enough between the two of them to keep them both. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    Whether or not you were (implicitly) citing template:Infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover isn't the issue as itself the section of the doc. From WP:PAG#Adherence: Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined through consensus. However, I'm uncertain whether that section regarding usage of an extra cover art, no matter how significantly different, reflects the "best practice". In this case, I don't see enough critical commentary to justify using an extra cover art. Also, I'm uncertain how an extra cover art of this album would be too significant to delete. I already understand how the article describes the album without an extra cover art, and I think most readers would have the same understanding as mine, right? Besides, Spotify and Amazon Digital Music currently use the standard global cover art, especially for US listeners. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 18

File:No Limit file.ogg

[edit]

File:No Limit file.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Technohead1980 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was previously tagged with "dfu", so I'm taking the sample here. It is used in three articles: one album, one song, and one band. If any use of the sample does not comply with WP:NFCC, including "contextual significance" (#8), then the sample should be removed from that page. IMHO the critical commentary doesn't suffice enough to support the sample, and deleting the sample wouldn't affect the understanding of the album, the song, and the band. George Ho (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm unsure whether or not the sample is necessary to help readers understand the song. George Ho (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 12

File:Kim Wilde-Shame.jpg

[edit]

File:Kim Wilde-Shame.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I have had doubts about the cover art's compliance with WP:NFCC#8. A different copy of the same cover art (File:Shame Kim Wilde.jpg) was PRODded and then deleted three years ago without contest. Regarding its compliance with "contextual significance" criterion (in addition to WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3), the cover art identifies itself as part of the Wilde single release. However, for three years it hasn't been uploaded until recently, implying that the article was fine without the cover art but with a free photo of Kim Wilde. The Kim Wilde recording was not the first version of the song "Shame", originally sung by Evelyn "Champagne" King. The Wilde recording charted, all right, but only in UK; it did not fare well there. It didn't chart elsewhere, and the recording itself did not make much impact as the King recording. If success and impact doesn't signify "contextual significance", then I don't know what else does. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC); edited, 09:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Overwatch loot box.gif

[edit]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as the article talks about the loot box as a general idea which is not specific to Blizzard's Overwatch. It is entirely possible to create a free equivalent serving the same encyclopedic purpose. Wcam (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep While the general concept of a loot box (where this is being used, a box that dumps out random game items) could easily be recreated via a free approach, it is the animation and the visual elements that are used in Overwatch's implementation of the loot box opening, which are designed to create anticipation and thus part of a psychological effect (and thus why they are compared to gambling) that is discussed in depth in the article, which would be nearly impossible to recreate appropriately within that free image that this particular non-free is capturing (including why this is animated). Otherwise reduced to meet all possible NFC metrics. --Masem (t) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless you volunteer to create said free equivalent, I do not believe it should be deleted. That is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete First, I do not know whether the repeated "explosion" of the box is what appears in the game or whether the opening of a loot box is shown as a single explosion. If, in the game, the effect is repeated then this file fails WP:NFCC#3b because the extent of use is not minimal: a single showing would suffice. If the game shows the effect once then WP:NFCC#5 is failed because the image is misleading (and promotional) and so not encyclopedic. At least for this reader the image and article fails to explain what a loot box appears to look like and so WP:NFCC#8 is failed because the image seemingly could be removed without reducing understanding. Thincat (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is a gif image, set to repeat, that's not violating any NFC allowances. (If it were a gif image that included the cycle multiple times in a single loop, that would be a problem). And "loot box" as a term is pretty clear that the object is going to be a box - and the article gives other ideas like loot crate right at the top - so its clear that the gif starts with a "loot box" for the game. In addition, it is the animations associated with that opening that are subject of discussion in the article that meet NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 01:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep As others have said, I don't think creating a free equivalent is plausible. Loot boxes, almost by definition, are ways of generating revenue, so I really think it's very unlikely that there will be a comparable gif/image from a free source. Moreover the gif in question is a very small part of the overall work and is fairly transformative (see WP:NFCC#3). I also think its a pretty on-the-nose depiction of the subject article. There's also no way this is occupying any commercial space, in my opinion (see WP:NFCC#2). This seems to pretty clearly meet the NFCC to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete replaceable, as it is possible to create a generic loot box animation that fulfills the encyclopedic purpose. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue in play is that there is a psychological component (discussed in article text) to these animations that I'm sure Blizzard (developers of OW) have studied or evaluated to make these animations alluring, and that facet is something that a freely created image of a loot box opening would not be able to capture because we don't have this same knowledge of what Blizzard (or other companies) have been able to discover to make the loot box process alluring. If the extent of the article were merely discussing "Here's a loot box, you open it and get stuff" and nothing about the psychological effects, I wouldn't even have a picture to show that, text is sufficient for that. But the whole mess around loot boxes is their psychological impact towards additive behavior, and these animations are specifically tuned towards that, something we simply can't recreate through a free image. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep For the same reasons as above. There is almost certainly no free equivalent that fulfils the same encyclopedic purpose. It is technically possible to create a free equivalent, but there's a significant skill barrier to doing it. Lots of things are technically possible that aren't necessarily going to happen, e.g. if there were only non-free pictures of the surface of Mars, then it might be technically possible to create a free equivalent by either going to Mars or convincing the copyright holder to use a free licence, but in reality it's reasonable to assume that it's not going to happen. Practically, if this gif were deleted then there would be no replacement. If a free equivalent is eventually created then it should be used instead, but the meantime I think this gif should remain. Neckstells (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replaceable by a free image that could be created. It does not matter that the creation might be hard, or the free image might be "worse". That's part of being a free encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nowhere NEAR the same unless someone from one of those bigjob companies told us what makes it so suspenseful and alluring. So Keep it!! — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 6

Cover arts of Automatic Lover (Call for Love)

[edit]

File:Automatic Lover (Call for Love) Real McCoy 2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobyjamesaus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Automatic Lover (Call for Love) Real McCoy.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobyjamesaus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Having more than one cover art is subjective, but normally it is discouraged, and this may be no exception especially to WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Preferably, I think the artwork for the 1994 release (eBay) should remain. The band was the German Eurodance band, and the song charted well in the band's home country, Germany. Of course, one would prefer either the other image or both. I don't know why having just one cover isn't enough in this case unless... it's about recognition? George Ho (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC); edited, 23:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks so much inviting me to contribute, I appreciate it. I agree that in most cases 1 cover artwork is enough. However, in my opinion, when the art work is significant different for different continents, and the song was successful across continents. Then having both cover art work helps improve the article. Many readers might be like “I know this, but the cover looked nothing like that here”.
I’m bias, because I put them there, but in my opinion, in this case, two images is appropriate. 🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talkcontribs) 23:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete 1 and keep 2 because I think 1 looks ugly. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean "delete" the cover of a man in a uniform or the cover of a man and two women frowning? George Ho (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete the man in a uniform and keep the man and two women. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

October 23

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png

[edit]

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesmiko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the noise around the star raises it above the TOO. schetm (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main issue here has to do with WP:FREER not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4; so, the nom's reasoning for bring this to FFD isn't really correct. File:Hollywood Stars.png, the other file being used in the main infobox, is licensed as PD and that seems fine. If the non-free file was simply the same star logo on a black background, then it would be OK to simply change the non-free license to {{PD-logo}} as well. The non-free file, however, has an addition "white scatter effect" added to it (which might be intended to be stardust). This seems like a significant difference that goes beyond a simple shape and might actually be a copyrightable element; so, I agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this point. If the consensus also turns out to be the same, then this file needs to remain non-free. The question then is whether we need to have it along side the freely licensed primary logo or whether simply describing the cap logo as such somewhere in the article is an acceptable alternative to the non-free use of the file. That's a pretty tricky question and is definitely something worth further discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikiacc () 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as non-free logo. It's a borderline case as far as TOO is concerned, so it's probably best to consider it as having sufficient creativity for copyright. Having said that, it properly belongs as the non-free team logo, so that the "entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image". In looking at the team's website, it is clear that this is the only logo now used.  JGHowes  talk 00:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 17

NSYNC single covers

[edit]

File:Iwantyoubacknsyncgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Tearinupmyheartgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Itsgonnabemelimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

additional cover arts added nominated by George Ho (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 22:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Iwantyoubacknsync.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bouncehoper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Tearinupmyheart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bouncehoper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5. As a brief history, these album covers were listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 27#NSYNC single covers which ended with all three participants agreeing to keep, but in the meantime were deleted based on the original WP:CSD#F7 speedy tag. King of ♠ 08:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on the suggestion made by George Ho at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5, is it possible to add the remaining single covers from each of the articles if there is consensus to delete these files in this discussion? This will allow each single cover to be given a fair chance by the community to determine which cover will remain on each article and reduce potential bias of these files in particular if both files in each article do not meet the criterion of WP:NFCC#8. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If using two images violate "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria, then probably use the earliest artworks for both "I Want You Back (NSYNC song)" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" since those songs were successful back in, respectively, 1996–97 and 1997 right before their 1998 (re-)successes. Otherwise, I don't see the problem of using two images in each of these articles. Having two images would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary only if one image isn't enough for most readers.

    Furthermore, using both the US and international images of It's Gonna Be Me would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently. It should also help US readers recognize one cover and international readers recognize the other. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @George Ho: What do you mean when you say that two images "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" and "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently"? ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase or clarify the "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" part. Two images of "I Want You Back" look different obviously; maybe they look essentially similar. Same for "Tearin' Up My Heart". If there is more to explain, then I would say first that single releases of those NYSNC songs must have been periodic(al). Furthermore, the US customers weren't able to receive the retail physical release of "I Want You Back" until 1998. In other words, the US success occurred in 1998; the song didn't have a chance there, despite earlier European success. Moreover, the artwork used for the 1996 release wasn't used for the later 1998 US release. Well, Europeans have received various artworks in their retail stores at the time of various periodic releases. Secondly, NYSNC band members are US-born, yet the band was already the international sensation at their time before they made their chances in the US.

    In short, I think most US readers wouldn't recognize the 1996 release of "I Want You Back" but instead the 1998 (re-)release, while overseas readers may recognize one of artworks publicly released prior to 1998 re-release, which they would also recognize.

    As for "Tearin' Up My Heart", the Europeans would recognize one (the earliest) or two artworks (that and the 1998 re-release); the US customers didn't receive a retail physical release. The 1998 artwork is used for the US promo but also recognized by European customers who bought the 1998 re-release. The Europeans would also recognize the earlier 1997 release, which was successful in Europe, a year before "Tearin' Up My Heart" arrived in US radio stations.

    Rephrasing/Clarifying the "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently" part, the US readers would recognize more the animated artwork used for the US limited edition release of "It's Gonna Be Me", while the overseas readers would recognize the live-action artwork more, which was part of the overseas retail physical release. I don't think additional info about the artworks is necessary in order to further justify the usage of the images, is it? I don't think a reader would recognize one or the other artwork without using the two simultaneously, even with captions, some of which were I've seen removed without explanation. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 01:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all per NFCC3a (multiple non-free files used where one would suffice) and NFCC8 (omitting the images would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article). Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Stifle: Deleting every file will leave each article with no cover in the infobox. As I asked above, which of the two covers for each song listed should solely remain in use based on the information provided in the article and in this discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The first three. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    In other words, Stifle, for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart", the cover arts of the 1998 re-releases of those singles should be used instead of the earlier releases, right? Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all My first choice would be to delete both album covers in each article, as the album covers are not the subject of critical commentary reflected in referenced prose (which is the standard for NFCC #8). There are plenty of non-free album covers that do pass that standard, but that's because they are discussed in the article in a non-trival way. These aren't - it's purely decorative. However, should prose materialize, I would still say keep only one cover per article, as having several fails NFCC #3. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Based on Template:Infobox song#cover recommending an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song, one of the covers in each article should remain. NFCC #3a specifically applies to additional non-free files added, otherwise most songs on Wikipedia would not contain any artwork in the infobox. Which covers would you preferably choose to keep based on the other comments in the discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The instruction for the parameter doesn't say at least one should be kept. That's intended for those wanting to add an image into the parameter. I don't think The Squirrel Conspiracy was wrong to cite NFCC#8 to vote deletion for all of those cover arts, i.e. assuming that songs can be well understood without the cover arts. Well, others' opinions differ from those of the user. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete each alternative cover. Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion. Each song was first released in territories outside of NSYNC's native U.S. with a particular cover and each single found success in those markets. They were then released domestically with a different cover, but this time in the group's home country. The argument to justify both covers relies on the different recognizability between the audiences because of the differing covers, and said justification is likely amplified by the existence of {{Extra album cover}}. However, this still fails to address WP:NFCC to any degree. Just because it exists doesn't mean its inclusion is justifiable under policy: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Contrary to the comment at DRV that suggested WP:NFC just happens to be a guideline with the implication that it operates separately from WP:NFCC—one of several comments at that discussion which really showed how incredibly out of touch some users are in regards to NFCC—it is more accurately a supplemental page. It outlines, as miniminally as possible, the degree of understanding of how NFCC is applied and has been applied over time to non-free media files. It is almost never acceptable to use a non-free image of a living person in the subject's biography article, for example. NFCC does not directly state this, NFC does. This is why I deleted the alternate covers to begin with under speedy deletion, because they are textbook violations as highlighted by NFC. There are definitely other examples which are significantly less clear which I have declined speedy deletions to, like photos of cast members of a reality show (see this discussion as an example).
A bit of a tangent, but let's get back on track. If we look outside of albums about articles, I think this concept can be better understood. Take Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, for example. An entire generation in the U.S. did not grow up with the book cover displayed in the article, or the title for that matter. In fact, the release history suggests an array of covers for this single book. Notice how there isn't a single extraneous cover in the article? That is because it is not justified by policy. The text alone explains it all, and the readers' understanding of the article is not detrimented in any way. The same goes for films—WALL-E displays one of the many theatrical posters designed for the film, and that's not yet touching on the different covers for the DVD releases. Same with games—Pokémon Red and Blue has three versions of the same game, with slight variations between their gameplay, but only the Red version cover art is displayed. Policy does not justify the other two. Aside from the "this second cover features this Pokémon, and the third one an even different Pokémon" description, there is no critlcally sourced commentary about the other two covers themselves. Regarding the contextual significance criterion WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS elaborates that "only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". Album articles are no different. The use of additional non-free items in the same article requires a higher burden of justification under policy than the main item displayed. Any additional cover art must be subject to sourced critically discussion. If it not, it inherently fails to meet all ten NFCC criteria to justify its inclusion. ƏXPLICIT 09:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, then how do you explain the consensus to "keep" cover arts of "I Should Be So Lucky" (FFD) and "no consensus" to delete one of cover arts of "Hanging on the Telephone" (FFD)? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: You will need to ask the closing admins Fastily and Jo-Jo Eumerus to explain why the discussions resulted in keep. Interestingly, Finnusertop noted Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover in both discussions, which is what I also brought up at DRV for the exact opposite reason; it does not cite a discussion to verify such a consensus exists for alternate covers. I did some digging and found that the phrase was added here in October 2012 by Jheald. The original wording read: "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, an alternative or regional non-free cover image may be used only if the image is discussed by critical commentary within the article it is used in (see WP:NFCI)." This reflects exactly what I've been arguing the entire time. The way it reads today is a result of Jheald altering the statement citing their own comment in a discussion at WT:NFC. The discussion referenced was likely Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#Multiple non-free images in an article. Both Masem and Hammersoft noted inconsistencies in the application of policy, which persists after eight years—from the discussion at least, the issue itself has likely persisted longer. Ultimately, it is clear that there was no discussion, let alone consensus, for Jheald's aforementioned amendment to the template's documentation page which single-handedly overrided NFCC.
It is very troublesome to find that such an edit with long-lasting ramifications just slipped through the cracks. I am simply interpreting NFCC how it has been applied through the consensus of past discussions, but it is quite evident that the users on the other side of the spectrum have experienced something completely different, and I can see why. I really do think a formal RFC is merited at this point, especially considering my points above regarding other mediums of entertainment. Regardless, it should be handled following the closure of this discussion. I think we should get an initial discussion regarding the matter at WT:NFCC to get out ideas and understandings in order and limit the derailment of the deletion discussion concerning these particular files. ƏXPLICIT 11:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote in 2012. First the edit summary,

Per my comment in current discussion at WT:NFC, The previous statement did not reflect WP:NFCI, nor past discussions at WT:NFC, nor decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted current practise.

-- all of which is precisely true.
Simultaneously to making the change at Template:Infobox album I flagged up the change I was making at WT:NFC (archive link), the relevant policy board for policy in this area , which at the time was very active and lively, making clear exactly what the change was and why I was making it. This was not a change made on the quiet in some corner under the radar. I presented the changed text in detail on the relevant policy board and invited discussion. Nobody objected, nobody disputed it, nobody changed it or re-edited it or reverted it, and the text has remained in place.
But this lack of challenge is perhaps not surprising, because the text I added relected the consensus, already discussed several times at WT:NFC, based on earlier discussions and the balance of decisions at WP:FFD that Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
As I wrote then, and is still relevant today:

This essentially reflects the point, that if we consider an album cover important to show, as informing the reader's understanding of how the album was branded and marketed and made into an identifiable object, so passing NFCC #8, that rationale also applies to an alt cover, if the one item cannot convey equivalent significant information (NFCC #3a) -- i.e. if the alt cover is also strongly associated with the album, and is very different to what the reader would learn from the first cover.

It is true that Masem has consistently opposed that analysis of NFCC #8 and cover art, and sought to present cover art here as a customary exception to NFCC #8, rather than a working-out of it; but when he pushed it to an RfC, he found that that his was not the view of the community. I believe that the fact that neither what I wrote at WT:NFC nor the edit that I made to the template doc was challenged probably indicates that he accepted that what I had written probably did reflect the consensus.
As for Uniplex's text, added a year previously, it was not the original text [1], did not appear to have been discussed, and as I noted at WT:NFC did not reflect something WP:NFCI#1 mandates, did not reflect the run of previous discussion at WT:NFC, nor the run of decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted practice.
If User:Explicit believes that policy or its consensus understanding has changed since 2012, I would be grateful if they could point to the discussion/s at WT:NFC where this change in consensus understanding was established.
It is also unhelpful to mis-state NFCC#8 as being about "readers' understanding of the article". What the NFCC specifically NFCC#8 identifies as the relevant consideration is "readers' understanding of the article topic". I trust User:Explicit appreciates the difference. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The outcomes of deletion discussions like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 6#File:"Rain" by Madonna - UK single cover.jpeg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 27#File:KylieJeNeSaisPasPourquoiCover.png, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 7#File:Having a Rave Up Canadian album cover.jpg (transparency: I was the deleting admin in this case) prove otherwise. It is not as consistent as you make it out to be. By chance, do you have a link to the RFC you've cited in your response?
As mentioned above, I do agree that this issue needs a centralized discussion in order to get a more definitive answer to the age-old question. Both sides of this debate interpret NFCC differently based on their experiences dealing with alternate covers, which have continued to provide contradictory results for more than a decade. I think we can both agree going back and forth will not make the other budge. I do plan to initiate a discussion at WT:NFC once this concludes, and am interested in facilitating productive discussion between the two sides. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You said, "Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion." Besides how you interpret NFCC, why else would you favor keeping, i.e. choosing as main images, the 1998 re-release cover arts of the two singles and the live-action (non‑US) artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me", content-wise? George Ho (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My statement reflects my non-interest in which of the two covers is decided upon. Some users will prefer the original, and others the re-release. Stefan2 brought up an interesting point regarding book covers at the "Rain" UK cover discussion I linked in response to Jheald above, and which has furthered my curiosity in the disparities between MOS:NOVELS#Images and the approach taken in album articles. Perhaps this is worth considering should this discussion result in the deletion of one of the covers for these articles. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The cases you mentioned are years ago. The more recent example should be this FFD discussion about single releases of "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby". Well, my rationale was lengthier and in paragraphs; there were no responses. Regardless, the result was deleting two images of different single releases of the song. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed that both covers on the band's debut album also have the same issue, given that the alternate international cover is constantly re-uploaded due to multiple WP:CSD#F7 tags. Should the files also be included here or is it better for them to be discussed separately? In response to Jheald and Explicit, I agree with the prospect that community consensus at WT:NFCC and WT:NFC would hopefully rectify any future incidents. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
They should not be added to this particular nomination. I think it would be best to hold off on further nominations for now. Once this debate is resolved one way or the other, I would like to proceed to a broader discussion, as I mentioned above. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion has stagnated for months, but hopefully, the discussion can be revived enough to make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One month now...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Fair use claims appear valid to me. Aasim 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Uploader comment: Going through each Harry Potter book article and talk page discussions about the cover art as suggested by User:Explicit, there seems to be some ambiguity about which artwork to include on the infobox of each article. Based on the release history section of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I am hesitant on listing every cover art with an ambiguous caption such as (Re-issue with new cover), which fails WP:TECHNICAL since no description about the artwork is used in a similar style as MOS:ALT. In regards to which image to include, both covers for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" have been used interchangeably worldwide; there are also covers used in the UK and Australia that are not included in the article per WP:UNDUE. The discussion to decisively choose one will most likely end with neither side willing to budge, which would only leave both covers remaining as a compromise. The infobox image of Pokémon Red and Blue as of this version also suggests that the ambiguous WP:NFC policies have affected several articles. The debate has been going for long enough that we should gain community consensus at WT:NFC and WT:NFCC to establish firmer guidelines specifically for song and album covers to avoid loopholes exploiting Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover and WP:WAX. Adding actively involved editors for consensus @Jheald and George Ho. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete one of the sets of three. I can see a point for keeping either one (German as the first, American as where the band is from). I do not see under the NFCC that it is in fact necessary for more than one image on each song's article. I would tend toward keeping the American release copies. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: Technically, "Tearin' Up My Heart" wasn't commercially released as a single in the US. Somehow, someone mistakenly believed that the single was commercially released in North America, so I corrected the wrong assumption. But I see your point about deleting the early German artworks. Oh, the standard live-action artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me" is the non-US, overseas release, while the US edition uses the animated artwork. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't feel like replying to the ping made in August because I didn't have anything much new to further discuss. However, after my recent comment at another FFD discussion and (re-)reading WP:PAG#Adherence (often overlooked?), I have wondered whether the section of Template:Infobox album/doc about using Template:Extra album cover accurately describes what consensus supposedly agreed to be best practice. If that section doesn't reflect what suits the consensus well, then the NFCC shall take precedence toward this case instead and then be decided by consensus. As I've seen so far, the votes seem split on which set to keep and which to delete. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

October 11

Should I Stay or Should I Go single covers

[edit]

File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Exciter106 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Should I Stay or Should I Go by The Clash 1991 rerelease.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded the cover art of the 1991 re-release as intended replacement of the 1982 US limited ed. sleeve (showing Ronald Reagan on the cover). However, my PROD tag on the US sleeve was contested, citing that original release is more preferable than reissues.

I'll explain why the 1991 reissue cover art should be the sole lead image for Should I Stay or Should I Go. First, the 1980s US releases of the single performed modestly, if not less than modest, on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Second, there were other concurrent releases outside the US, such as the band's home country, the United Kingdom. Third, I have not yet found one reliable source connecting Reagan and the song, which would have justified using the US ltd ed. sleeve more. (Vulture article mentions Reagan but not in the section about the song, which is ranked #19.) Fourth, the double A-sided release shows the other song "Straight to Hell" on the front cover and puts "Should I Stay or Should I Go" as part of the tracklist on the back cover; strangely, "Straight to Hell" is labelled the AA-side track, while the other is labelled A-side track. Neither image of that double A-sided release would adequately match the critical commentary contained within the article. The picture disc edition of the double A-sided release would not be suitable either; the song title above a picture of the band in one vinyl flip side would be harder to see in small size.

Fifth, the Levi's TV/radio(?) commercial helped the song receive greater attention from TV viewers and probably radio listeners, leading to the song's re-release and then success in 1991. I have worked on the article on the "Draft:" namespace primarily to emphasize and weigh more on the 1991 re-release. Sixth, I have used cover arts of the reissues of There She Goes (The La's song), Dreams (The Cranberries song), and Holding Back the Years, whose re-releases were much more successful than their initial single releases, though the more successful re-releases came one to two years after their own initial (less successful) releases. The greater example would be Etta James's recording of I Just Want to Make Love to You, which became a lot more successful in 1996 as the result of the Diet Coke commercial. I want to make it consistent with other articles that weighed more on more successful re-releases. If the examples aren't enough, how about It Must Have Been Love and Dolly Parton's version of I Will Always Love You? Well, each has sections about both original and re-releases (or re-recordings).

In short, if above is tl;dr for you, I will say that more weight should go for the 1991 re-release cover art mainly because it was much, much more successful in Europe (and New Zealand) than it performed modestly worldwide and the Levi's company, whose logo is shown on the cover, made the song more successful. Unless there's a reliable source proving explicit reference connecting the song to Reagan, I should favor the 1991 Levi's cover art and drop the 1982 Reagan one. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep both covers given that both were notable versions of the songs and each would have their own article. The first three reissue examples provided have re-releases that came out two years later than the original and the originals were not notable. The last two reissue examples are similar to this, in that they were farther apart in time and the originals were notable. I would not be opposed to the reissue having its own section and infobox and the last two reissue examples have. Aspects (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The releases of this song aren't "versions" but different single releases of the same recording. The 1991 re-release uses the same original 1982 studio recording. The US release in early 1980s was modest compared to the European/Oceania double A-side release. Also note that the quantity of the US picture sleeve must have been very limited since the US single release was branded as "Special Limited Edition". Alternatively, the 1983 US/Dutch single can be used as replacement of the Special Ltd Ed release, but the chart performances of the 1980s US releases were still modest at best. By the way, I've not seen you commented on "I Just Want to Make Love to You" yet. Well, I'm trying to find a better example to compare, but they aren't easy to find. Nevertheless, I can't use the original studio recordings and recorded live performances of other songs, like I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song), for comparison. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the second one per WP:NFCC#3a, multiple images being used where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Stifle, if you explained your additional reasons a little more further, that would be great. I've seen you cite just policy to delete one over the other in other discussions regarding cover arts but without sufficient explanation for your preference(s). I've explained my reasons that the 1982 US sleeve should be deleted and that the 1991 reissue cover art should be kept. How are my reasons not convincing enough for you? George Ho (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 00:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    The policy speaks for itself and does not need additional reasons. I don't really mind if you'd prefer to keep the other one, but they can't both stay. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (or, more aptly, "Stay"). With a little more citation and writeup about the relevance and historical significance of these 45 covers, they greatly add to this article. I'll happily take that on, once we come to consensus to keep the images being debated here. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stifle: How do you explain the "no consensus" decision, resulting in two images at "Hanging on the Telephone" kept by default? Furthermore, is policy enough to justify deletion in one case but not enough for that other case? Is FFD the right venue for which image (free or non-free) to prefer? George Ho (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. Each FFD is independent and there are no precedents. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I was just trying to make a comparison. That discussion was about keeping either one or two regional covers for the single release of that song and enforcing WP:NFCC#3a. This discussion also has the same purpose. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sourced commentary should be produced to support keeping multiple files here before a !vote for keep entered, not after. Given the discussion above, I would support keeping the later re-release's image. Delete File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Morganfitzp and Aspects: I searched for sources covering the cover art featuring Reagan but then found none as of date, especially at Google and databases from the Wikipedia Library. I even searched for books from libraries' online catalogs but could neither find one fresher info nor access a few books. I even recently tried to find reliable sources that would improve the necessity of displaying one of the original early-1980s releases, but then I fell short. I still am trying to figure out why else, besides being one of earliest releases and in music charts early then, the US Reagan sleeve is favored as much as (or more than) the 1991 "Levi" reissue.

It's been months. I still favor (and prefer) the "Levi" brand artwork more than the other, especially per WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#CS, for reasons that I mentioned when I listed both cover arts. Have you either stuck to your original votes or changed your minds? BTW, Aspects, I mentioned months ago that the releases use the same original recording; I just couldn't find studio re-recordings of the song. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:George HoL I remain a firm keep. Sticking to NPOV and not "favoring" one sleeve or another. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to keep this file, and it might even help a researcher find something that they'd be otherwise hardpressed to find. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Technically a double vote, yet a re-confirmation (to me). George Ho (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
My opinion has stayed the same and nothing discussed after my comment led me to change it. Aspects (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah... I recently found out that the cover art of the 1991 reissue was uploaded under the filename File:Sisosig.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but then replaced in 2015 by the special limited US "Reagan" cover. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

October 5

File:The Terror of War.jpg

[edit]

File:The Terror of War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toohool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:TrangBang.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Second image nominated by George Ho (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @WGFinley with the reason "This is a copywritten image owned by the Associate Press, it is not Public Domain." FASTILY 04:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rehman, I contacted the office about this issue, they were able to retrieve the letter and get it in OTRS now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I was worried the letter would be lost after the deletion. Cheers, Rehman 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version, as uploader. The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, as shown on the file description page. A bare assertion of copyright ownership by the AP can't overcome that fact. Note there is also an open FfD discussion on another famous Vietnam War photo in the same situation. Toohool (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Where are you basing your statement that this doesn't have a copyright notice? This image is owned by The Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time, what is the basis of your claim this didn't have a copyright notice? --WGFinley (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@WGFinley: It's based on looking at the newspapers where the photo was published. The file description page includes links to a sampling of newspapers where the image was published with no copyright notice at all. Out of a couple dozen newspapers I found where the photo was published, not a single one had a copyright notice for the photo. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain. Were that true, you using it on WP would make it instantly PD, that's not the case. Nick Ut worked for AP for 51 years, they clearly own this image. https://apnews.com/1bc4725ece764fcab754a99b030f0397 --WGFinley (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Copyright notice was required for works published in the U.S. before 1989, and the failure to include one generally placed a work in the public domain. That is why we have a template for this situation, {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Toohool (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If a license agreement calls for the licensee to include notice, but the licensee fails to do that, that has no effect on copyright status. 17 USC 405(a)(3). We have the template for the situation where, in fact, the notice requirement wasn't met -- not for where Toohool concludes via his naive investigation that it wasn't met.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and the situation's beginning to get serious. There's an enormous body of statute, regulation, and case law on this kind of stuff, and you're running around claiming PD for scores of famous images based on a summary table you saw in some pamphlet. You really think you've made this penetrating analysis everyone else missed? The word sophomoric comes to mind. EEng 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: As I've asked you already, please dial down the confrontational tone. What basis do you have to believe that the notice requirement was met for this image? You are correct that publishing a work without notice in violation of an agreement that explicitly requires notice is an unauthorized publication and therefore does not put the work into the public domain. However, what evidence is there that AP's agreements with its members required them to place a copyright notice on all photos in general, or on this photo in particular? In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. Look at any newspaper from the era and you will probably find every AP image to be lacking a copyright notice. In the very rare instances where they distributed copyrighted photos, most papers did attach a copyright notice to the photo (as in the example of the Jack Ruby photo), which suggests that they required copyright notices to be attached only to certain photos, and makes it very easy to draw the dividing line between those photos that were copyrighted and those that were not. Toohool (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You stated that publication by newspapers without notice necessarily kills the copyright, and now you admit that's not true; you seem to just make stuff up as you go along. I don't need to show what was in AP's licenses, or anything else. You need to show the work is PD, and if that means showing what was or wasn't in various licenses, I guess you'll need to do that. You also seem to think that a copyright notice must appear immediately adjacent to the photo, and that's not true either; in fact, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what form an appropriate notice for an AP photo would take.
As the LC points out [4] many wire service images weren't copyrighted, but "determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous." But here at wp (and Commons) we don't take such "calculated risks". (There are some exceptions, as with e.g. movie studio publicity stills, which were commonly intentionally placed in PD from the very beginning to encourage their wide publication, and we allow ourselves to make that assumption. But that's a very special situation.) So we can't use your speculations about a "dividing line"; we need convincing evidence that the work is PD. EEng 03:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain, because there are exceptions, such as unauthorized publication. You're the one who's brought up that possibility, with no evidence, aka "making stuff up". You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end, and that the AP never did anything about it. It's a pretty extraordinary theory that you should have some evidence for. If we follow your argument, we'll have to delete every {{PD-US-no-notice}} image (about 1300 on enwp and 250,000 on Commons), because it's virtually impossible to prove the nonexistence of a contract with such a clause. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain – That's what you're saying now. Before that, when another editor said "Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain", you said "Yes it does", which isn't true. And before that you wrote The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, which isn't true. And before either of those, on the file description page [5] you wrote The photo was published simultaneously in many newspapers, many of which had no copyright notice at all (neither for the photo in particular, nor for the newspaper as a whole). Copyright was therefore forfeited ..., which also isn't true. Like I said, you're just making it up as you go along.
  • You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end – I'm not positing anything. I'm just showing that, over and over, you make statements about how copyright works which turn out to be false.
By the way, can you please address the point I raised earlier about the acceptable form and location of notice for a wire-service photo? EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Instead of just repeatedly saying "that's not true", and trying to wikilawyer to prove that I've said something incorrect, how about making an actual argument to rebut the evidence I've put forward that shows the photo was published without notice. Like, point to some authority that substantively contradicts what I'm saying, or maybe show us even one example of where the photo was published *with* proper notice on its initial publication? Or, instead of assuming that I don't know what a copyright notice looks like, give us an example of what a notice might look like that you think would be easily overlooked. So far, the only thing of substance you've said in this discussion is that the copyright wasn't forfeited if the AP's license agreement required copyright notice, so why won't you explain how that could plausibly be the case? Toohool (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You're the one saying the notices are missing, yet you refuse to explain what you thought you were looking for when checking for one. I actually don't know all the forms and locations acceptable in a situation like this, but what's clear is that you don't either (or, at least, if you do know you don't want to say) so your statement that notice was missing is hard to credit. And you're the one saying that a missing notice means PD, even though that's clearly not true (e.g. [6] says "Images without a copyright notice may still be under copyright"). Nothing else is needed to show that your reasoning is faulty. EEng 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The notice requirements for pre-1978 works are outlined in Appendix A of chapter 2100 of the Compendium of Copyright Practices. Per Part 4.2.1, the notice must include the terms "Copyright" or "Copr." or the copyright symbol (or a misspelling or close variant of one of those). It also has to identify the claimant, but that's moot in this case, because no notice satisfying even the first requirement was found. The location of the notice is specified in part 4.3.3: For a single-page contribution to a periodical, notice must be placed "anywhere on" the contribution. One might reasonably interpret this as meaning on or immediately adjacent to the photo, or in the caption, but I also looked everywhere else on the page.
Of course I don't believe that lack of notice absolutely places the photo in the PD. We have discussed exceptions to that rule in this very thread and elsewhere. The source you're quoting is simply pointing out that you can't take a random image off of the web, or off of a paper you find on the ground, and assume that it's public domain because there's no copyright notice. It could be an unauthorized publication, or a limited publication, or an unpublished work. It could be that the notice was omitted from only a few copies because of a manufacturing defect or the like. It could be that the copyright notice was removed by a third party after purchase. If you have a theory of some exception that applies in this case, please explain. Toohool (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the original file. I secured permission from the AP to use this file 15 years ago for Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that, we're making a fair use claim for it. Using the image that was uploaded later is at a resolution not in accordance with a fair use claim, it's too high of a resolution. This is image is clearly copywritten by the Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time and he is still alive. There is no valid public domain claim to be made for this image. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "PD", Keep fair-use See above. EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version as PD in the United States per 17 U.S.C. §§ 19-21 (1976), as there is no evidence of notice, and no evidence of a contractual requirement to provide one. Replace non-free version with PD, then delete as no longer required. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment For reference, a discussion on Commons about another AP photo in exactly the same situation has been closed as Keep. Toohool (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep File:TrangBang.jpg, delete File:The Terror of War.jpg Huntster (t @ c) 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: On what basis? Toohool (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
WrapupEdit

@Fastily can we wrap this one up now? The only support for keep for the new image is the uploader. We've been trying to have discussions about it but his positions usually amount to referring to statutes and caselaw. This is pretty clear lawyering. OTRS has a letter from the copyright holder stating they own this image and granted our permission to use it. Notwithstanding that permission we're making a Fair Use claim here. I think the original image should stand with its Fair Use rationale and the subsequent one should be deleted. Pretty clearly I'm involved here so I won't wrap this up but think it should be. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me pointing out that your argument for deleting the image is based on misunderstandings of the law is not lawyering. And we don't delete public domain images just because someone makes an invalid claim of copyright. Toohool (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Discussion has grind to a halt on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrapup

[edit] @Fastily can we wrap this one up now? The only support for keep for the new image is the uploader. We've been trying to have discussions about it but his positions usually amount to referring to statutes and caselaw. This is pretty clear lawyering. OTRS has a letter from the copyright holder stating they own this image and granted our permission to use it. Notwithstanding that permission we're making a Fair Use claim here. I think the original image should stand with its Fair Use rationale and the subsequent one should be deleted. Pretty clearly I'm involved here so I won't wrap this up but think it should be. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me pointing out that your argument for deleting the image is based on misunderstandings of the law is not lawyering. And we don't delete public domain images just because someone makes an invalid claim of copyright. Toohool (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Discussion has grind to a halt on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg

[edit]

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toohool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vzbs34 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
(nominated by George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

This file was recently uploaded as being in the public domain to replace the same file, File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, that has been labeled as being fair use since it was uploaded in 2003. I am not sure, which is correct, but I feel it needs a definite answer here. Aspects (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as uploader. Image was widely published by its proprietor without a copyright notice in 1968 and therefore became public domain ({{PD-US-no-notice}}). It just seems that nobody has noticed this fact before. Toohool (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Toohool, Why would public domain photos be here instead of at c:? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Koavf: In this case, because Commons requires that images be free in the US and in the country of origin. As explained on the file description page, the image is probably copyrighted in its country of origin (whichever country that may be) at least until 2055. Toohool (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Huh? What do you imagine the country of origin could possibly be, if not the US? EEng 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    @EEng: Please refer to the explanation in the licensing section on the file description page. Toohool (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    You mean where it says The photo's country of origin is unclear, as it was distributed by the Associated Press and may have been published simultaneously in any number of countries i.e. you're just guessing that it "may have been" published simultaneously in any number of countries? This is getting completely crazy. EEng 03:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am following Commons' precautionary principle - I can't confidently say that photo is public domain in its country of origin, so I didn't upload it to Commons. I uploaded it to enwp because I'm confident that it's public domain in the U.S. What's crazy about that? And how is it relevant to whether the file should be kept here on enwp? Toohool (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Huh. Why aren't you following the same logic with everything you've uploaded to Commons? How can you can you know anything wasn't published simultaneously in any number of countries? That's what's crazy. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Because Commons policies are interpreted by humans, and I don't think those humans would try to enforce the rather absurd result of treating photos taken in the US by US photographers working for US companies as having some other country of origin. Again, what does this have to do with whether to keep this image on enwp? Toohool (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as fair use. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, no one questions that we can keep a fair-use copy. The issue is the new claim of PD. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the so-called PD version, as the evidence for PD is full of holes -- precisely the same problems as with WP:Files_for_discussion/2020_April_24#File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg. Keep the fair-use version, of course. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't have the time to wade through that discussion, the only "hole" that EEng has identified there is his speculation, against any evidence, that the AP had a license agreement that required these photos to be published with copyright notice (which, if it were true, would mean that copyright was not forfeited). Toohool (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the holes are (a) that you keep saying publication without notice means PD, and that's not true, and (b) you are unable to say what form and location of notice is required, and that matters to the question of whether notice is missing. EEng 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Those aren't "holes", those are just you taking my statements out of context, making assumptions about what I do or don't know, and jumping to conclusions from the fact that I haven't written a treatise on copyright law in response to your demands. Toohool (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, cautiously, due to Toohool's replies below so far; was Delete as a potentially-copyrighted image for which we already have a fair-use version: This file has significant doubt about its public domain status, particularly as nobody has shown actual citations of Associated Press member agreements or policy of the time, let alone U.S. policy or case law about whether a publication that was authorized with the requirement to provide copyright notices, then published without the copyright notices, was actually an authorized copy. Details:
    1. This is a 1968 photograph, created (i.e. put in tangible form) by a U.S. citizen in what was, at that time, Saigon, South Vietnam; I don't think there's any doubt that it was soon after published in newspapers around the world. In 1968, the U.S. copyright law was a version of the Copyright Act of 1909, not of the present Copyright Act of 1976 that took effect on January 1, 1978. Wikisource:United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 1/Sections 19 to 21 shows United States Code Title 17, Chapter 1, § 20: "notice of copyright shall be applied ... if a periodical either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading" but also says "One notice of copyright in each volume or in each number of a newspaper or periodical published shall suffice." § 21 then says: "Where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this title with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, but shall prevent the recovery of damages against an innocent infringer".
    2. Wikipedia and Commons have a common principle that the burden is on those wishing to include content, not those wishing to exclude it, to prove that the external content meets wiki guidelines. Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is a manifestation of this. In order for the file to be kept on English Wikipedia, either it would have to be beyond significant doubt that the photograph was not registered for copyright, or both of the following would have to be true without significant doubt:
      1. The publication's copyright notice was omitted or defective not only on the photograph page, but also the title page, the "title heading", and the "volume" of the publication; and
      2. the Associated Press either had not "sought to comply" with the copyright notice requirements, or the copyright notice omission was not "by accident or mistake" and someone can find U.S. law to clarify whose "accident or mistake" excuses the lack of notice.
    3. There was some mention of "simultaneous publication in multiple countries" that included the U.S. For works before 1978, I wouldn't defend a file with that on English Wikipedia. First, before 1978, works published in the U.S. within 30 days of first foreign publication were U.S. publications for purposes of U.S. law, and U.S. law is what carries on English Wikipedia. Second, following another country's copyright provisions would, if anything, make it more likely that the work retains copyright: Other countries either were part of the Universal Copyright Convention and followed roughly the same rules as the U.S., or were part of the Berne Convention and already copyrighted everything regardless of copyright notice or registration.
--Closeapple (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot to unpack here, it will take me some time to respond in detail. Toohool (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Closeapple: In reading § 20, you are conflating the copyright to a periodical with the copyright to a contribution to a periodical. The copyright notice for a periodical, as you point out, may be located on the title page or first page or under the title heading. But, it only secures copyright to the portions of the work owned by the publisher, as SCOTUS summarized in 2001: "Pre-1976 copyright law recognized a freelance author's copyright in a published article only when the article was printed with a copyright notice in the author's name... Thus, when a copyright notice appeared only in the publisher's name, the author's work would fall into the public domain, unless the author's copyright, in its entirety, had passed to the publisher." (The "author" in this case being the AP, and the "publisher" being the individual newspaper.)
As the periodical copyright did not cover articles or photos not owned by the periodical itself, those had to be individually copyrighted as contributions. The notice requirements for such contributions are specified in Appendix A of chapter 2100 of the Compendium of Copyright Practices. The location of the notice is specified in part 4.3.3: For a single-page contribution to a periodical, notice must be placed "anywhere on" the contribution. There was no such notice in this case. (For that matter, neither was there a periodical copyright notice for most of the newspapers.)
Reliance on the "accident or mistake" clause (§ 21) is misplaced. As you have asked for citations about how this clause is applied, see Leaffer (p. 153), McLain (pp. 693-694), or van Gompel (p. 22), and the cases cited therein. That provision was narrowly interpreted to cover omission from a small percentage of copies, because of mistakes like manufacturing defects. It did not cover negligence or mistakes of law (such as "I didn't think a copyright notice was required" or "I just forgot to add a copyright notice"), and certainly did not cover cases where notice was omitted from all copies of a work.
Nevertheless, it is valid to theorize that the AP's member agreements might have required the photo to be published with a copyright notice, and therefore copyright was not forfeited if the newspapers violated that requirement. This is a legally sound theory (per American Press Ass'n v. Daily Story Pub. Co.), as I've acknowledged earlier in this discussion. But it is not a factually sound theory. What evidence is there to suggest that such a requirement existed? AP photos were routinely published every day by newspapers all over the country, with no copyright notice in sight (except in very rare cases). If the AP required all of its photos to be published with a copyright notice, wouldn't you expect that there would be at least one newspaper somewhere that did that? I don't think anyone will be able to find an example of such a paper. If the AP required copyright notice to be affixed to this particular photo, wouldn't you expect at least some newspapers to have done so? I looked at a lot of newspapers where this photo was published, and not a single one had such a notice.
As for your concern about publication in multiple countries, I think you may have misinterpreted that conversation above. The point was raised in response to a question about why I uploaded the photo here instead of on Commons. As you correctly state, it is likely that the photo might be under copyright under another country's laws. That is exactly why the photo is here at English Wikipedia, where we are only concerned about U.S. law, instead of at Commons, where policy requires PD photos to be PD in the U.S. and in their country of origin.
I agree that we should not keep the photo if there are significant doubts about its PD status, and I hope this puts your doubts to rest. Toohool (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The main reason that I'm guessing that the AP must have required a copyright notice as a condition of use, if not enforced than at least nominally, is that your alternative hypothesis seems even more astounding: You're saying generally that the AP, which has been a massive content source in the United States for decades, and which would have both motive and resources to uphold the exclusivity of its output, nonetheless spilled everything right out into the public domain continuously and immediately for decades on end. If true, then even more astoundingly, nobody else seems to have substantially exploited it before now. Are you basically calling open season on everything that came from or through the AP up to 1978? If so, this seems like a big deal for English Wikipedia and Commons; it almost seems like something that would require a new PD tag like {{PD-US-AP-no-notice}} to explain what's going on. --Closeapple (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Closeapple: It seems astounding from the perspective of today's world, where copyright exists by default and there's been an explosion of content that presents many new opportunities for licensing. But 1968 was a different world.
The AP said it themselves in 1942 when they argued before the Supreme Court that news "has no value after it has once been published". One expert discussed the question in 1953 of why so many newspapers were not copyrighted, attributing it to this idea of news having little durable value, combined with a perception that the formalities of copyright (registration and deposit) were too onerous.
To some extent, the AP had means other than copyright to protect their work. There are a number of cases where they tried to stop competing news outlets from copying their reports immediately after publication. They were able to do this because they convinced SCOTUS to create the hot news doctrine. See for example Associated Press v. KVOS, where a radio station was sued for broadcasting AP reports verbatim without permission, but there was no suggestion that it might have been a copyright violation.
They did, however, distribute some copyrighted concept. It shouldn't be assumed that any AP rules about copyright notice were "nominal", because newspapers did, to some degree, attach notices to whatever content was meant to be copyrighted. For example, on the same day this photo was published, there were at least 62 newspapers that printed an AP copyright notice for their daily stock quotes. I also found 4 examples of photos that were distributed by the AP in 1968 with copyright notices (copyrighted by the local papers that had produced the photos), and out of 63 total instances I found where one of them was published, 33 to 55 percent included the copyright notice. So the total absence of copyright notice for other content should be taken as good evidence that there was no intent to copyright it.
But yeah, for the most part, it is open season on the vast majority of content distributed by the AP and other wire services before 1978 (and maybe to some extent, 1989). I'm not sure there will be some big rush to exploit this though. It's been known for some time that the AP renewed copyright for virtually none of their photos, so that pre-1964 photos are public domain, yet there hasn't been any flood of these images of Commons. For one thing, it's hard to find decent copies of most of these photos--a scan of a grainy newspaper print is not going to look very good. Toohool (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hate to have to relist a discussion that started in April, but the question of whether or not this file is fair use or PD still seems unclearly answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep high-res version as PD in the United States per Mdaniels5757 and the reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-06#File:Campus Guns.jpg. As odd as it may seem now, when reproductions of old news photos are a lucrative business, we have no reason to assume that AP in 1968 contractually obligated newspapers to provide copyright notices. Wikiacc () 02:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If this gets relisted again, please try to keep it together with Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 9#File:The Terror of War.jpg, which has the same core copyright question. Wikiacc () 03:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: PD status in the United States is unambiguous and certain, thus the file can be kept as a PD image on enwiki. PD status in other countries is uncertain, thus it is a safe precaution to not host the file on Commons. Fair use policy is not relevant to the issue at hand, since there is no need to follow FUP for a PD image. --benlisquareTCE 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep local as PD. Having read through all three threads (The Terror of War.jpg and Campus Guns.jpg in addition to this one), I think it has been established that it is extremely unlikely that this image was published with copyright formalities (or to put it another way, there is no significant doubt about the fact). The reasons are that AP generally did not observe such formalities and, for this image specifically, no first publications have been found with a copyright notice despite extensive search. Because, in a few cases, other AP photos were in fact published with a copyright notice, we know what to look for and where (in the Rudolf Hess case, an extensive search easily located first publications with the notice). The theory that U.S. newspapers were under a contractual obligation to always comply with formalities but failed to honor it for decades with impunity is unreasonable (instead of something that would cast significant doubt on the freedom of this file) both because it is unlikely to be the case and because it is impossible show the (non-)existence of such a contract. Finally, the AP letter claiming blanket copyright over all AP content ever is both predictable in covering all bases and demonstrably false, not only because copyrights expires in general but because other AP photographs have been shown to have expired. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the one with the diacritics because it is lower resolution and otherwise identical. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 19:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

October 3

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg

[edit]

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EEng (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#7 as the original image from the 1958 paper is in the public domain (see File:WugTest.png and external investigation). While the copyright status of this image is unclear, the original published wug test was not colored so this is certainly not the original and so can be replaced with a free and more encyclopedic image. Wug·a·po·des 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The archived copy of the source mentioned in the file description attributes the image to "The Wug and Wug Test © Jean Berko Gleason 2006", which seems to refer to Berko's 2006 book mentioned in the Lingthusiasm Q&A. (Ironically(?), an excerpt of the article on McCulloch's blog seems to be the only version of the source that's still online.) Nardog (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That was my guess, but I'd never seen that book. It's not clear whether adding color to the wug is sufficient transformation to reach the threshold of originality, but taken in context of the entire work (which was first publication for all the other stimuli except wugs) it may be. If not, then this would also be public domain since authors cannot exercise copyright over public domain portions of an otherwise copyrightable work. Wug·a·po·des 03:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I was 100% convinced the "ricking" image was a meme made by someone parodying the test until I saw the archived page. Nardog (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not for copyright reasons (the original has what looks like a valid claim of being PD, this is merely a coloring-in of the original, and I don't believe that's enough to pass the threshold of originality) but because it's low-quality, unencyclopedic (because of its low quality and because it cuts off the top part of the image losing significant aspects of its meaning), and currently orphaned. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    I can't recall why it came out so awful but I was just too exhausted to figure it out. If you can make a better one that still respects NFCC that'd be great. (See the discussion linked from one of the versions in the upload history of the file.) EEng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I fixed the blurriness. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait (see below) I've nominated the "PD" version for deletion Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WugTest.png so let's not be hasty. EEng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    Wait how long? Commons still has open deletion discussions that were started last February. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    I forgot we were talking about Commons. EEng 03:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let it die a natural death in a couple days when it meets WP:F7d. If the discussion on Commons results in deletion, then we can upload a non-free version again, this time preferably in better quality—just because a fair-use image must be low-res doesn't mean it has to be so blurry. Nardog (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    The blurriness has been fixed. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Contrary to what the nomination says, the original test is in color, as shown in this file; the image in Word, where the research was reported, is in B&W because Word didn't print in color. I've corrected the article to reflect this [7], and as a result this file is no longer orphaned. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg

[edit]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per the very detailed fair use rationale on the image description page - that should cover the nom's concerns. schetm (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's the article content which the non-free use should reflect, not what's written in the nfur. This file is being used in three articles and the problem with this nomination is that it's not clear whether only some or all of those uses are problems, and I think it's important to asses each use separately. History of BBC television idents has 25 non-free files being used in it, which I think is the most of any current article. To me it seems like a sort of a "discography for BBC news indents" with lots of redundant content that can be found in individual articles. To problem with non-free files being used in multiple articles is that not all the uses are equivalent so just !voting delete or keep without specifying which uses implies that all the uses are equivalent. There's nothing in relevant policy that states that a file can only be used in one article or one time; policy does, however, require us to minimize non-free use as much as we can and that might be something worth discussing with respect to not only this file, but all the files used in the ident history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It might not be, but your original post doesn't distinguish between the different uses in different articles; this is another problem with the kind of mass nomination of files that you did. It's not clear whether you're suggesting that all of the file's non-free uses aren't compliant or just some aren't compliant. For example, the use in BBC Two '1991–2001' idents might actually be OK since the article itself seems to be particularly about this former ident or the series of idents it was part of, i.e. it's used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in a sense; so, that's not really a case of WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The uses in the other two articles are not so clear, but the one in BBC 2#Presentation seems like it could be OK depending how redundant you think the content in that section is to the 1991-2001 history article. The use in the more broader BBC indent history, on the other hand, article seems unnecessary in my opinion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Anyway, the point is that this is a file with three uses and some of these uses might be OK. This makes this particular discussion a bit more complex than perhaps some of the other files you nominated and thus this file shouldn't have been bunched in with all the others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg

[edit]

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jean15paul (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am aware that we typically permit reduced resolution images of album covers for use in articles about albums, but when it comes to the musical group, particularly when many members are still alive, we don't permit copyrighted images. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded this low resolution copyrighted image because no free equivalent image is available. The Soulquarians are/were a musical collective, not a group who regularly performs or appears together. As such this images from this copyrighted photo shoot are the only time the entire collective was together. Jean15paul (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI lists an exception, which may be relevant here: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." A fair-use image of one member from the collective would not be an adequate illustration for the Soulquarians article, so I would lean on keeping this image. In addition, two of the deceased members were among the key members by reliable accounts. isento (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg

[edit]

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LBM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "George (1956–1958)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. One logo with the lion gives a good visual depiction of what the logos looked like; it is not necessary to have all of them when the changes in them were relatively minor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The article that the logo is displayed in discusses the specific lions that were featured in the logos over the years. One logo with a different lion would not serve the purpose that this logo does. There is sourced discussion of George, the lion featured in this specific logo, which means it meets NFCC 8. Another MGM lion logo would not be depicting George, so one item cannot convey equivalent significant information, meaning NFCC 3a is met.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - NFCC 8 is met. As for 3a, it's also met because they enhance the reader's understanding of the prose present in the article. The other lions up in the Aug 14 FFD debacle were also kept. schetm (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, because if you delete this one then this one will be the only lion not to have a picture on Wikipedia. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

File:2015 NRL Logo.png

[edit]

File:2015 NRL Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CodyCruickshank (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in National Rugby League. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The use in the other article is used as the primary means of visual identification, but I'm not sure if every season's logo can be added to every seasons' article. Jonteemil (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Remove from National Rugby League#2010–present: Establishment of the ARLC. This particular use fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite-4) as posted about by Jonteemil. The file is also missing a non-free use rationale for this particular use, which means that the file is going to be removed at some point probably sooner than later by a WP:BOT if no rationale for this use is added to the file's page.
    Possible keep in an individual season article if can be detrmined when the logo was first used. The file's other use in 2015 NRL season is a bit more difficult to assess. Sometimes a former non-free logo like this has been allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI when it's used for primary identification purposes (i.e. as the main infobox image) in a stand-alone article about the season in which the organization changed its branding, but the connection between this logo and the 2015 NRL season is unclear and thus a problem per WP:NFCC. The file's name, the date it was uploaded, and the description given in the rationale indicate that it was used in 2015, but there's nothing to indicate that this was the first season the logo was used. The caption for file in the main article states "NRL logo used from late 2012 until 2018." There are individual articles for 2012, 2013, and 2014 NRL seasons, but this logo is not being used in them; therfore, it's not clear why the file is being used the 2015 NRL season article and not in any of them.
    If the logo was changed in late 2012 (as the aforementioned caption states) and the typical NRL season runs from March to September, then that would seem to mean that the 2013 NRL season (not the 2015 season) was the first time the logo was officially used in league play. According to National Rugby League#1998–2002: Rationalisation, Telstra started sponsoring the league in 2001. Both the 2007 NRL season and 2008 NRL season show a different logo bwas used than the one being discussed. It's likely that the NRL and Telstra changed the logo a couple of times over the years; so, the thing to figure out is when the change to this logo actually happened and then see if any sourced commentary about it can be found. There's no way to know whether the caption for the file in the main NRL article is correct since it's unsourced and there's nothing about the logo or branding change at all in the relevant section. So, if the season for which this logo was first used can be determined, then I could see using it in that article; if not, then I think it should also be removed from the 2015 season article as well, which means the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg

[edit]

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Leonard Cohen, The Partisan, 1968 - 28.5 second excerpt of English transition to French.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally nominated for deletion as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "The article only uses this for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation, which can be portrayed by text alone." Both were disputed on the files' respective talk pages. Listing here for further discussion as a neutral party. Pinging Fred Gandt and Buidhe. ƏXPLICIT 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The current fair use rationale is, "Anna Marly's original version of this song is starkly different than Cohen's, the version that is most well known. To properly understand how Hy Zaret's interpretation altered the song, the excerpt is of a particularly significant verse compared by sources, which will feature in the article along with an excerpt of Cohen's version for reader comparison, while reading the sourced textual comparison." If there is any musical, contextual value based on sourced commentary, it needs to have that on both the file description and in the article. Otherwise this should be delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's currently 3:30am for me, and I am heading to sleep very shortly: Anna Marly didn't record her performance until 1963 (around 20 years after live performance on the radio and subsequent publication as sheet music) and whilst much has been said about Cohen's version, little has been said about Marly's, with most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts. I have included as much relevant sourced discussion of the musical style Marly and Cohen applied to their respective performances as seemed appropriate in the article, but am limited in what can be said about Marly's, as the only recording is somewhat out of time from most source's focus; Marly's recording stands more as an example of what would have been heard 20 years earlier on the radio, with few sources having anything to say about it, because they're more often talking about the broadcasts 20 years hence.
I applied a great deal of effort to avoid cruft and original research while working on the improvements to the article (every statement is sourced, most sources are high quality, and almost nothing is relatively trivial) and may have previously dismissed, as useless or from a poor source, some further discussion of the style Marly applied in her performances and recording, and request some time (at least a few days) to go through all my research again.
I must also request that if the greater concern regarding the fair use of these excerpts is how they're documented (how I filled out the declaration) and not their application, please simply correct the documentation; this is a collaborative project after all, and although I tried my best, if improvements can or must be made, I welcome them. [I]t needs to have that on both the file description and in the article strikes me as a problem with the declaration more than with the files' use or existance; please help correct the issue instead of calling for deletion for technical reasons. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If, as you say, most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts, that would indicate that the musical qualities are not as significant and that text alone could convey the same information. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It should come as no surprise that a song with words written by one of the most prominent members of the French Resistance, composed and mostly broadcast during World War II, with a subject matter entirely about the circumstances of the time, should have most interest in it be focussed on the circumstances and message of the words. For sources to deconstruct the sound of the recording (as an example of the live broadcast performances) would be to trivialize the importance of the song. Much has been said about Cohen's musical interpretation of Zaret's adaptation, because it is fundamentally a pop song, and the musicality of pop songs is respectively a lot less trivial. The article contains sourced commentary about Cohen's sound, because sources consider the weight of the musicality to be high enough to discuss, but I am not at all surprised that sources don't go into detail about Marley's musicality much (although, as said, I will reexamine this) as it was far from what would normally be called a pop song, and its message and raison d'etre are rightly given far greater weight. This state of one version being considered differently than the other by the sources that examine the songs, and to an understandable degree, that the sources are themselves quite different in nature, does not change the fact that both are musical, and by that measure, substantially different. Many sources compare Cohen's to Marly's versions, demonstrating a wide interest in how they differ; the difference between the songs is clearly considered important by those who've examined them, but it should be expected that whilst Cohen's is discussed as a pop song, Marly's is not.
A significant problem I personally had and have in fleshing out the article, is that a vast amount of the sources that might be useful for Anna Marly are in the French language, and although Google Translate helps with some I found online, there are many books, including one I bought for research, that I cannot translate; there may be vast amounts of information about Marly's musicality in the book stacked only metres away from me, but I can't understand it. I did reach out for help, but was quite disappointed by the far from enthusiastic response. Even more difficult to understand/translate for me, are the multiple radio broadcasts still available to listen to online, that are also in the French language; this for example was easy to find, appears to be focussed on her musicality and role in the Resistance, and is entirely in the French language, so I have almost no idea what is being said.
I will need time to see what I can find, but strongly disagree that any further information about her musicality is required to satisfy the requirements for fair use of these excerpts. I wasn't flippant in my uploading of the excerpts, and am sure the points of WP:NFCCP are satisfied; please confirm if it is only point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" that you're concerned about? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In case you missed it @Buidhe:, could you please answer my question above? Cheers.
I have found some references with more specific focus on Marly's musicality, including a German university resource (luckily in English) which directly states exactly what the comparable excerpts are intended to demonstrate: "The melody and chord structure is considerably different from the original."[1] Another article with a focus on acoustic guitar states Cohen "re-worked" the song,[2] but there's really not much else, so it's a bit junky, and a reference already in use (the Independent obit.) mentions "she learnt to play with feeling and invention"[3] which is also a bit lame with this discussion's specific regard IMO.
Please continue to bear with me while I work on this. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)
  2. ^ acousticguitar.com
  3. ^ the Independent Marly obit.

I don't find any of this convincing so far. Contextual significance is not met if there is only brief mentions of aspects of the song that are not lyrics, because it has to significantly increase understanding. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How would a reader understand that the by far most well known version is significantly different to the original it is based on, in more ways than just the language, without describing that difference? They clearly wouldn't, which would be a disservice to the readers and actually misleading. Without making clear that the version widely acknowledged as definitive is musically unlike the original, no reader could be expected to guess. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't add anything more to my side of this dispute; it's sadly not a discussion. It was never the intention that [t]he article only uses [these two files] for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation; honestly there would be little point to that beyond some kind of "told ya so" demonstration of the facts as described in the nearby text. The files were always intended to enlighten readers to the huge difference in sound/texture/feeling "musicality" (I dunno) that became the effective default after Cohen's Zaret's, compared with the true original. The musicality of Marly and Cohen (in particular) are (and were before my recent addition of extra details) discussed as and where appropriate, to what degree is reasonable and within the scope of what good sources are currently available; Marly's artistic talents, including her guitar playing and whistling are described where fitting, and the musicality of Cohen's cover is discussed to a greater degree, also where fitting. This dispute did help to highlight that the article was lacking sourced textual discussion of that difference, but I have (at least to a fair degree) solved that omission. Thanks to Explicit (talk · contribs) for recognising that the files' use is linked and listing them here together. I can see no way that the use of these files, in the capacity they are currently used, is a violation of fair use, or any current alternative way to make clear how utterly different the original is to everything post-Zaret. I was about to go on, and on, but I feel as if I'm barking at a wall, so that's that unless some discussion or a decision is forthcoming. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like we have a consensus right here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both. It seems there is "sourced commentary" on the music, but not very much. However the musical differences seem to me very considerable (by my listening to the clips) and the reason that the lyrics are remarked on more than the music is likely to be that books can't address the musical aspects without using technical commentary that may be inaccessible to the reader. The lyrics can be directly discussed in words. My understanding of the musical differences is significantly (indeed greatly) increased by the clips in a way that would not (for me) be possible with textual discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Several Images of mass shooters

[edit]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The use of fair use images of mass shooters who are not notable enough to support their own articles fails WP:NFCC#8. Similar deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 5#File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg have all resulted in delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The nominator made zero notifications about this discussion as required by WP:FFD: The uploaders of the file were not nominated, deteleable file captions were not added to the files in use in articles, no article talk page notifications and no related WikiProject notifications were made. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the four images listed above by Aspects. There does appear to be enough coverage of the individuals in question to warrant a stand alone article be written about them. Ideally that would seem to be the best thing to do, but perhaps for editorial reasons the relevant content has not been WP:SPLIT off into separate articles about each person. If someday individual articles are created, then the image should be removed from the corresponding event articles. Delete the remaining images for essentially the same rationale. The physical appearance of none of the individuals involved seem to be relevant to the actual event or seem to be something that actually requires the reader see a non-free image to understand what is written about the events. Three of the photos are being used in the main infobox of the event article (101 California Street shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids mass murder and Hartford Distributors shooting) which is not appropriate at all for such an article. The other photos are used in "Perpetrator" type of sections which really don't require a non-free image to be used any more than a "Victims" section would require non-free images of individual victims to be used. Moreover, some of the photos have nothing to do with the event at all and were taken years prior to the event which makes their contextual relevance per WP:NFC#CS even more suspect. Out of the remaing photos, File:Clarence Bertucci.png and File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg might be possible to convert to WP:PD (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}), either because of their age and lack of copyright notice or because real provenance since it seems unlikely either of the sources cited for those images are the original sources of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the surveillance screenshot of the perpetrator with a gun as lead image of 2019 El Paso shooting. Even as an offensive material, it's still encyclopedic. Furthermore, it well illustrates the topic and the perpetrator's involvement. Deleting the image would deprive readers from primarily visualizing his involvement in the Walmart incident.

    On the other hand, delete image of Micah Xavier Johnson from 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. The split proposal failed (Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section), and I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image, no matter how large or enormous the "Perpetrator" section is. His ethnicity/race is briefly described. The article is more about one event than about the perpetrator himself. Deleting the image wouldn't affect how the article can adequately tell readers about the whole event.

    For the same rationale above, also delete the one used at 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers#Perpetrator, which merely illustrates the perpetrator's appearance in a video.

    Also, delete all others, including (especially) File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg, whose appearances wouldn't impact the understanding of the tragic 1984 massacre and all other incidents. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusionEdit

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

November 28Edit

File:Gundel Interior.jpgEdit

File:Gundel Interior.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ryanbpest95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious license, probable copyright violation. The only source given for the image is a deeplink, which was valid and has been archived but is now dead. I cannot find where the image was used outside of Wikipedia, but around the time that the image was uploaded, the main page of the site had a clear copyright message and no mention of a creative commons license: https://web.archive.org/web/20100831212429/http://itthon.hu/

Note: I nominated another file by the same uploader for similar reasons yesterday and a couple more last week as well as others through the proposed deletion and WP:CSD#F9 processes.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Engine room watchboard (2).jpgEdit

File:Engine room watchboard (2).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fishdecoy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image, duplicate of File:Engine room watchboard.jpg with an extra nut superimposed in the upper left corner.  ★  Bigr Tex 04:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia article Taiwan shows up as 1st result of Google search calling Taiwan a country.pngEdit

File:Wikipedia article Taiwan shows up as 1st result of Google search calling Taiwan a country.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by In wkpd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The rainbow microphone icon, rainbow magnifying glass icon, POI icon, sun with mountains on photograph icon, newspaper icon, and video icon are all copyrighted images property of Google Inc. --benlisquareTCE 09:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see any use that this image would have. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, the buttons are simple shapes that are ineligible for copyright. Félix An (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Begowala imagesEdit

File:Begowala 25.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Begowala 26.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 29.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 32.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 33.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 34.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 35.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 36.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Begowala 37.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adeel n cheema (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned images of a town in Pakistan. None of them have any encyclopedic value given their low quality. All of the images are low resolution and in most of them the focus is unclear. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Colonial Parkway-entrance.jpgEdit

File:Colonial Parkway-entrance.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PearlWashington (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Insufficient source/license information and absent uploader so no ability to correct. If the uploader took the picture, we would need them to license the image in addition to the one for the sign. If the uploader found an image taken by a member of the National Park Service, we need a better source (I can't find one) to confirm that fact.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:GliultimigiornidiPompei.jpgEdit

File:GliultimigiornidiPompei.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Encyclopædius (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GliultimigiornidiPompei.jpg. This may be eligible for fair use, though. Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Delphi Double-Murder Suspect.jpgEdit

File:Photograph of Delphi Double-Murder Suspect.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theroyalrambler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly unfree file. The declared source has the caption "Investigators have released an updated voice recording and video of the suspect not previously released that was extracted from slain 14-year-old Liberty German’s cell phone".[8] This indicates that this is not a work of an FBI employee. We should assume that the copyright belongs to Liberty German's family. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about all that stuff, but THE QUALITY IS TERRIBLE!! — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

File:PS145 Students Perform Macbeth.jpgEdit

File:PS145 Students Perform Macbeth.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Floydrumohr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:PS289 Students rehearsing Hamlet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Floydrumohr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Teaching Artists April Cantor and T. Scott Lilly in Cyrano.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Floydrumohr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo was seemingly taken by the uploader on behalf of Stages of Learning, an organization that has gone defunct. The uploader claims that "Stages of Learning dissolved in 2010 and its intellectual property is now in the public domain." I don't believe this is true (see orphan work). Nonetheless, it's possible that the uploader retains copyright and has the authority to release these works into the public domain. Wikiacc () 22:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Salavat: the licensing situation has improved. Would this be enough for you to strike your delete vote? Wikiacc () 02:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Uploader has produced this document, stating that he "is authorized to enter into any and all agreements to make use of Stages of Learning intellectual property now and in perpetuity at his discretion utilizing the Stages of Learning name and/or logo." This, to me, suggests authority to release the works into public domain (or at least a free license). Wikiacc () 02:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all as nominator; licensing has been changed to a free license, confirmed by OTRS. Wikiacc () 02:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent nominationsEdit

November 29Edit

You Don't Have to Worry (Mary J. Blige song) cover artsEdit

File:Blige-You Don't Have to Worry.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:You Don't Have to Worry by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Two cover arts are visually different from each other, but they have similar role: visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (WP:NFCI). However, using more than one visual identifier, regardless of what Template:infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover entails, is normally discouraged by WP:NFCC#3a, especially when the covers are essentially similar. This comes down to choosing one over the other. Preferably, the US retail cassette edition should be the sole lead. The song charted in both the US and the UK, but using the US retail tape reflects how the release was manufactured and then distributed to US retail customers. Furthermore, the song was recorded by an American singer and produced under an American record label. Nevertheless, I'll respect someone else's favor toward the UK CD. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Just throwing out an opinion here, I like the cassette less than the other one. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Grand Admiral Thrawn Lego.jpgEdit

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) AnomieBOT 18:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Grand Admiral Thrawn Lego.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dswitz10734 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an photo of a toy. Although the photo has been freely licensed, the toy is still copyrighted. Whpq (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Whpq Okay. I did not realize that the toy was copyrighted. I only thought about the fact that the photo was free and that the article, Grand Admiral Thrawn, needed an additional visual. Feel free to delete, however another image would be beneficial to the article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

November 30Edit

File:Bruxie logo.pngEdit

File:Bruxie logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Troutfarm27 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

uploaded an svg version at bruxie logo.svg Troutfarm27 (Talk) 02:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Checked [bruxie.com] and found the .png is their current logo, will replace on page if no argument is given. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No argument given, logos swapped. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

File:The Opening Ceremony of the 1936 Summer Olympics.ogvEdit

File:The Opening Ceremony of the 1936 Summer Olympics.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Modern Major General (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The original film footage from Olympia by Leni Riefenstahl (d. 2003) is also copyrighted in Germany, then it was restored in 1996 due to URAA. 122.2.10.69 (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cover arts of I'm Goin' Down covered by Mary J. BligeEdit

File:I'm Going Down.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:I'm Goin' Down by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I requested undeletion of the US cassette variant as intention to replace the square CD one. The Mary J. Blige single was released in the US commercially as a cassette single; the US customers hadn't received the CD one ([9][10]), unlike overseas customers. The cover arts use the same image, and using them both goes against WP:NFCC#3a. At first I thought about keeping either one. Preferably, I should go for the US cassette mainly to reflect what the American customers received at the time of release and the singer's nationality.

However, with recent proposals and nominations (including mine) on cover arts of artists' cover versions, and with deletions of some (if not many) cover arts of less significant (if not less successful) cover versions, I can't help feel torn about and wonder whether either one variant would also meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. Rose Royce's version charted in North America but didn't perform well (or much) there. (Modest international success is claimed, but I have trouble finding reliable sources to confirm it.) Blige's version performed probably no better either. Well, Blige's version performed either decently or modestly in the US. I don't know how to describe its British chart performance; it debuted in a Top 15 position but then dropped and dropped in weeks. It didn't fare well in another European chart. The Blige version has a music video, but that's much about it.

This all comes down to whether the critical commentary presented can strengthen the usage of either variant. Neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:Notability mentions images (unsurprisingly, I think). MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation stands firm against "decoration" and excessive usages, but that's all there is about using cover arts in song (or album) articles. If either cover art does meet WP:NFCC#8, then I guess critical commentary makes the usage of a cover art stronger. If it doesn't, then the notability of the Blige version couldn't weigh more than the original, the critical commentary isn't strong enough to guarantee a cover art, and a cover art of the Blige version wouldn't make a difference.

tl;dr: In short, I want to keep either one (preferably the US cassette variant), but I have grown torn over its compliance with "contextual significance" criterion. Nonetheless, I don't mind the results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep the cassette, it looks less faded and has a taller version of the image. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

December 1Edit

File:LWF6.JPGEdit

File:LWF6.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Montrose Patriot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan image with license issue. The uploader states that this image is "... courtesy of DON "The Emissary" SERIBUTRA" but then uses a {{PD-self}} license. Since they don't attribute their other uploads to Don, it is doubtful that the uploader is Don and therefore would not have the ability to license the image as PD.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Orphan image" agreed. Also, what's the need for it anyway? — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2Edit

File:McDonnell Company logo.pngEdit

File:McDonnell Company logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Great Brightstar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Stated to be used for identification, but that purpose is fulfilled by File:Mcdonnell Aircraft Corporation Logo.png, a free image, failing WP:NFCC#1 There is no significant sourced commentary about this logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The McDonnell's logo in 1958 have documented by both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, the significant sources were archived at the Wayback Machine, and they are accessable at the file description page, and there is already have an article includes contents displaying company's historical logos (see Sun Microsystems), so it's reasonable to preserve. --Great Brightstar (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There needs to be significant sourced information about the logo in the Wikipedia article itself in order to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It is not sufficient to assert sources exist on the Wayback machine. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Tom Harte and Paddy McGrath.jpgEdit

File:Tom Harte and Paddy McGrath.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Palisades1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photos from Ireland, taken before 1940. The sources of the photos are unknown. Copyright in Ireland lasts until 70 years after the author's death, so these photos might still have been copyrighted in Ireland on the URAA restoration date (1996), which would make them still copyrighted in the United States. See c:COM:IRELAND. Wikiacc () 02:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - The stated reason for the image being public domain of "because public website" is nonsensical. There is insufficient information to make a determination of copyright status as noted in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Body Parts cover.jpgEdit

File:Body Parts cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Resurgent insurgent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm not convinced that WP:NFCC is met here. The article this is used in is about the subject of this book, not the book itself, and since the book is discussed only briefly, I'm not sure what including a fair use image of the cover really adds to the article. Hog Farm Bacon 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Punter Jacob Schum of the Green Bay Packers, 2016.jpgEdit

File:Punter Jacob Schum of the Green Bay Packers, 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mario957 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned and probable copyvio. The uploader appears to be a serial copyright violator. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned and useless. Delete. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 22:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

December 3Edit

File:Donald Duck.svgEdit

File:Donald Duck.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ANGELUS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Peteforsyth with the reason "Unclear what the source is, since the file referred to (at Italian Wikipedia) was deleted (due to copyright problems). There is no attribution for this file, and it's unclear whether or not it's an authentic depiction of the subject. In addition, having a vector-based SVG for a non-free file violates the need to use only low-resolution images for this purpose." FASTILY 02:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete: It should be easy to find a suitable image that is known to be official, and can have a proper attribution in its non-free use rationale, etc. This one is based on a file that has been deleted, and (unless somebody can dig it up and fix the NFUR) it's unclear where it was copied from. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I am kinda sure this is official, I'll do some searching. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
No luck yet, but some interesting finds (no complete match): Donald Duck 4-Pin Set Disney movie rewards exclusive, Button made by OSP (One Stop Publishing) in the early 1990s. and Vintage pin from 70s 80s USSR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I replaced the picture with a smaller jpg version, File:Donald Duck.jpg, which has correct non-free license info. I replaced the image used on the article page. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Only way Is Up Otis Clay.jpgEdit

File:Only way Is Up Otis Clay.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image of the original Otis Clay version of "The Only Way Is Up" is used as a lead image and part of the Clay infobox. Recently, I removed discogs from the article as "unreliable" per WP:RSP#Discogs. Then I searched on Google News and Google Books couldn't find reliable sources that would prove further significance of the original Clay version and improve the article. If I use Wikipedia Library, I bet the results would be the same. Thus, the Clay vinyl image would fail WP:NFCC#8, especially as lead image. The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction. Somehow, the Clay infobox and image were inserted several years back just to push the Yazz infobox down. I'm not nominating an image associated with the cover version of a song as I've done to other images of cover version releases. Rather I'm nominating the image of the original version. George Ho (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now added alternative sources re the significance of the Otis Clay song and could find more if necessary. The Clay infobox was not added "just to push the Yazz infobox down" (see WP:AGF), it was added because it is the original recording, which is highly notable. Placing the infoboxes in a different order would be chronologically wrong - I do not accept that "The Yazz version is more prominent, so the Yazz infobox and image should be part of the lead introduction." Re the image of the Clay label itself, alternative sources could be found if necessary, but my understanding (happy to be corrected) was that Discogs can be used as a source for images, but not for references about those images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think more is necessary; if Yazz's version had neither existed nor made the song popular, I would have redirected the song to Otis Clay. Seriously, I would have. Indeed, how are the weights of original version's and of Yazz version's significances different from those of (They Long to Be) Close to You, All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song), No Me Ames, and Solitaire (Laura Branigan song)? I'll use databases of Wikipedia Library to verify the original's significance soon. George Ho (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Finished using Wikipedia Library databases. Added just info about albums listing the song, but that's much info I can add. I don't think what I added would make the song more significant than I hoped for. George Ho (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. If you just think that the Otis Clay infobox should be removed, why not simply raise that question on the article talk page? Or are you seriously suggesting that all mention of the Otis Clay original version should be removed? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to remove all mention of the Otis Clay original version, but I'll discuss the infobox when the closure of this listing arrives. Actually, I'm trying to make consistency with songs whose cover versions are more popular and more notable than more obscure original counterparts/versions. I also don't want readers to give an impression that. I also don't agree that the Clay version is "highly notable". Rather I think it is "notable" but, if not for Yazz version, not good (or strong) enough for a stand-alone article. George Ho (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Didn't notice the partial sentence, so I'll give a fresher one. When readers see this image, they would see the image as proof of the item's existence. However, when they read the whole article, the readers would get impressions that Yazz version is more prominent, especially at such detail. Then the image of the Clay single reason would be set aside by readers and probably overlooked. To put it another way, I don't think the image of the Clay version would help readers improve their understanding of the releases of the song... or rather understanding of what the critical commentary can convey. Also, I don't think there's enough critical commentary to support the image of the Clay single release. George Ho (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Those are fair points, but I think that approaching it in this way - rather than simply suggesting on the article talk page that the Clay infobox should be removed - is a strange way to approach it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Confidence (novel).jpgEdit

File:Confidence (novel).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrahamHardy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The cover and spine are ineligible for copyright protection and too old anyway. A free license for the photo of the book however is missing. If a Wikimedian acquired this book and took a photo with their own camera and licensed the photo freely, it would be fine and could be uploaded to Commons. Per WP:FREER I think this should be deleted. (unless every last copy of this book has been destroyed, which seems unlikely) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:TiesGranzier.jpgEdit

File:TiesGranzier.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sralitch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, questionable licensing templates. Appears to be copied from someone's personal Instagram account. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - unused with no evidence of permission -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Podma Pettit pedal pumping.jpgEdit

File:Podma Pettit pedal pumping.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Podma Pettit (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file of questionable encyclopedic value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unused personal file. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 4Edit

File:25105 Ekspres Selatan Kluang.jpgEdit

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 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:25105 Ekspres Selatan Kluang.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gaudi Renanda (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Ekspres Rakyat Timuran Tumpat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gaudi Renanda (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low Quality; these pictures have a prominent watermark stating the copyright of photo in contradiction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Watermarks,_credits,_titles,_and_distortions 202.186.243.111 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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:Former Iraqi national anthem, 1981–2003.oggEdit

File:Former Iraqi national anthem, 1981–2003.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Illegitimate Barrister (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This work appears to be copyrighted in Iraq; see c:COM:IRAQ. Though it is legally public domain in the US, WP:Public domain requires that such works be used under WP:NFCC only. Suggest relicense to non-free or delete. Wikiacc () 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Dorothy-height000.jpgEdit

File:Dorothy-height000.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brownsc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Though this image is used on a Library of Congress website, it is unclear whether it is a US government work. (Also, the image is not used in mainspace.) Wikiacc () 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:F86.jpgEdit

File:F86.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DonJay (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan image. No evidence of release by copyright holder.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Boston area college town map.pngEdit

File:Boston area college town map.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bullshark44 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source website shows that as of the date this image was uploaded to Wikipedia, the license was Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike License 3.0, which is not a compatible license. This is still the license today. — Diannaa (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 5Edit

FooterEdit

Today is December 5 2020. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 5 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===December 5===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.