Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Non-free Singapore Air Force insignia

Decorative use of non-free logos in image gallery in Military aircraft insignia#Current insignia of national air forces which fails WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. The non-free use rationales for the use of the files in the more general military insignia article look like they were just basically copy-pasted from the ones for the uses in Republic of Singapore Air Force with just the article name changed. The two articles are completely different and images are being used in the main infobox of the RSAF article, which isn’t the case at all for the more general article. There is no sourced critical commentary of either the RSAF or these particular images in the more general article, so the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is not really provided. There’s no content about these files in the insignia article which requires that they be seen by the reader to be understood; so, there’s no reason for them to be seen. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP allows the reader to follow the wikilink to the RSAF page, and vice versa - 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- A non-free image isn’t needed at all to create a WP:WIKILINK to another article since there are plenty of alternative ways to do the same thing per WP:FREER; moreover, if that’s the primary justification for using the image, the non-free rationale should state so and not simply try to use the same justification used for the non-free use in RSAF article. —- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, national markings are pretty relevant to an article about national air force markings. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of non-free images which could be argued as being relevant to an article, but “relevancy” is not really a justification in and of itself. Non-free image use in image galleries like this are pretty much never allowed because the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost always lacking; so, perhaps you can clarify how seeing this particular image of the rondel/insignia significantly improves the reader’s understanding of the subject of of the article to the degree that not seeing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about flags, etc. which have similar image galleries, but the use of non-free images in such articles is not the default simply because the non-free file is a flag or something else “relevant”. Perhaps there’s a way to provide the same encyclopedic information about the Singapore rondel/insignia to the reader (e.g. a placeholder image linking to the file’s page) as is done sometimes for similar image galleries, or maybe there’s a way to incorporate some sourced critical commentary about the rondel/insignia into to the article to better establish the context for non-free use. Even if the latter can be done, there would still be need to use two essentially identical non-free files for which the only real difference is that one is red and one is black per WP:NFCC#3a, and this would apply to the RSAF article as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usage in Military aircraft insignia is not suitable for the reasons pointed out by Marchjuly (WP:NFCC#3 / WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFG). Usage in List of air forces does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFLISTS. Usage in Republic of Singapore Air Force fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3 since File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present).svg is part of File:Republic of Singapore Air Force service flag.svg and File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present, low visibility).svg is just a different color. (Color can be described with free prose.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:POD Testify Limited Edition.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No critical discussion or educational value, fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nia Nal (Nicole Maines).jpg

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: keep. As pointed out, this isn't a living person but a fictional character and the "No non-free image on living people" policy does not apply to non-free images on fictional characters' pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file was used in article about a person - Nia Nal. Fair use of living person not allowed. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images_2: "Pictures of people still alive,..." . --geagea^Talk 06:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nia Nal is fictional, does the image violate any policy in that regard? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Black Canary (Katie Cassidy).jpg

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: relisted on 2019 November 1. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Canary (Katie Cassidy).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Levine supper.jpg

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 ⚡ 05:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims that they are the copyright holder of this painting but this doesn't look like own work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg

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 ⚡ 05:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unsourced derivative work without any evidence of permission. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/October#File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I took the original photograph and cropped it using Photoshop. I'm not sure why it has been scheduled for discussion for deletion. Advice appreciated. Papamac (talk)
- What you've created is referred to as a WP:Derivative work; in other words, there are two copyrights in play: the copyright of photo and the copyright of the thing being photographed. You may release your photo (i.e. the derivative) under a free license if you choose, but you cannot release the medal's imagery (i.e. the source of the derivative) without the consent of the person or persons who created the medal. Wikipedia's licensing policy requires that images uploaded be 100% freely licensed for them to be kept as such; otherwise, they are considered to be non-free content. It may be possible for this file to be converted to non-free content for the medal's imagery, but that would place some severe restrictions on how it can be used per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which would generally require that the medal itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary and not just used for "decorative purposes" in an article. Pinging Ww2censor for feedback on whether this might be possible here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image File:British Society for the History of Medicine logo.jpg is the actual logo of the society and can easily be justified, if non-free, in the article about the organisation but may even be considered too simple to obtain copyright in which case it is allowed in the list article where non-free images are disallowed. However the medal image File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg cannot pass the non-free policy for the article for the reasons I mentioned previously and even less in the list article List of presidents of the British Society for the History of Medicine. The image File:BSHM Medal Reverse.jpg may also have the same issues. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor Marchjuly Many thanks for those very detailed explanations. When I took the photo I was president of BSHM and had assumed that along with the right to wear the medal I had the authority to use its image in the public domain. I now appreciate that the situation is much more complex. If I were to add a paragraph in article British Society for the History of Medicine under a heading describing the medal, would that meet the contextual significance criterion, and allow its retention? Pinging Whispyhistory as it looks as though the image File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg will have to be removed from the article List of presidents of the British Society for the History of Medicine.

I do appreciate your monitoring of these issues to maintain copyright standards. Papamac (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iainmacintyre: it would pass, provided that there was sourced information about the medal that would necessitate actually seeing it (ie. that content would discuss what it looks like). The only other acceptable scenario would be a standalone article about the medal itself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I now appreciate that the image File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg does not meet licensing criteria and should be deleted. Papamac (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Liz looking somewhere.JPG

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 ⚡ 05:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image, no possible encyclopedic use John of Reading (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lori Stadium.png

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 ⚡ 05:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Lori Stadium 1.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.