Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	28	28
TfD	1	25	26
MfD	1	7	8
FfD	1	8	9
RfD	0	23	23
AfD	0	4	4

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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.

What not to list here

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.
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.
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.
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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
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.
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.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 July 22}}` 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=2025 July 22}}` 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=2025 July 22}}` 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 1932, not 1926.
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}}.

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 claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

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 discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

July 14

File:Order of the National Security Merit, Hangul- 보국훈장, the Person of National Merit Medal.webp

[edit]

Image is from Namuwiki, which does not have appropriate copyright license for use here grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namuwiki doesn't use a compatible license, but from what I can tell, this image is listed there as being {{KOGL}}, which would be compatible. Based on that I'd say we should keep and relicense, unless you think the license there is incorrect. hinnk (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

File:Xiamen University Wordmark.png

[edit]

This file certainly doesn’t pass the US threshold of originality, as the detailed logo is in the public domain, and the text is unoriginal. While the detailed logo is also in the public domain in China, I am not sure if the font for the Chinese characters is enough to pass the TOO. Basically, if it does, then we mark this as PD only in the US, and if it doesn’t, we move this to Commons. Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

File:Poppinsfirst4.jpg

[edit]

Is the image showing side portion of Mary Poppin books still eligible for copyright? One editor ~~thought~~ didn't think so a few years back. Nonetheless, I'm still uncertain due to drawings of the titular character in two of the books, so I recently changed back the copyright status and am bringing this here. Should be kept as unfree if no objections, IMO. George Ho (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC); corrected, 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore original free license and obfuscate the character on the spines if needed. ✗plicit 00:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Characters on the spines are definitely de minimis anyawy. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 07:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png

[edit]

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This file was marked as fair use with URAA restored copyright. But because this image was published in 1929 and URAA copyright expired, that means that it’s now in US PD and can be moved to Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons per nom ApexParagon (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem right. The author died in 1946. This drawing was still copyrighted in Canada in 1996; it didn't lose its copyright protection until ~~1947~~ 1997 (the rule is the year of the creator's death + 50, not just 50 years). {{PD-URAA}} requires it to be PD by 1996. The current licensing appears to be correct. ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"1947" or 1997? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that's what I get for rewriting my comment several times. Fixed, thanks! ✗plicit 00:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In file there is date of publication 1929, which means copyright expired. 2A00:F41:2C25:2FD9:F4D7:D975:F618:470F (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URAA doesn't matter - if it is published in 1929, it is now PD in the US, end of story. Move to Commons. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 07:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google books screenshot.png

[edit]

The text is PD, descriptions are ineligible, and the icons are simple. Not sure this is above TOO Jay Cubby 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the quote by Patrick Stewart come from? ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still a derivative work if the text is so small you can't actually read the quote? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could blur the offending quote. Then it would definitely be PS Jay Cubby 15:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:David M. Heyman.jpg

[edit]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending Commons discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg is kept. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: pending DR at Commons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

File:JohnHymers.jpg

[edit]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JohnHymers.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

File:Tweed Run London 2013.jpg

[edit]

"Feel free to use the image at will" is probably not legally sound enough to warrant us marking this in the public domain. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The objection seems unreasonable - the probability that the author intended the material to be private seems neglible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripe999 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems totally reaching to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

File:N.F.-Board logo.svg

[edit]

I just found that File:Logo N.F.-Board.png exists on Wikicommons, uploaded by Jean Luc-Kit himself in 2020. So that means if we use that instead of this SVG version, we know there's not a copyright violation here. However, whether or not this complies with WP:NFCC§1:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

may be uncertain, and may need to be discussed. The reason that is so, is because of WP:NFC§Multiple restrictions:

For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder. If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity.

So should it be deleted in accordance with this, to avoid any uncertainty; or should it acquire the copyright of the version uploaded by Kit, and continue to be used here? wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason the .png file shouldn't be used in lieu of a lower res .svg Buffs (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vectorisation of a image that is, in most circumstances only available in PNG/JPG form, and of really low resolution. I ended up getting caught up in other things so I couldn't respond until 23:00; but if need be, this SVG could be edited to basically copy the PNG that Kit uploaded, and could, possibly, inherently be called a superior version to the PNG version of which Kit had uploaded. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 03:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is a derivative work. It cannot obtain new copyright without substantial changes. It is not labeled correctly. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using 2 non-free images, and thus violating WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. Either File:N.F.-Board logo.svg or File:NF-Board.png (the non-free version on en.Wikipedia) must therefore be removed and deleted to comply with NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this upload, it appears the images are mislabeled and are not non-free. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed the N.F.-Board to ask about the copyright status on Wikicommons. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: Did you get a response? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like they responded to my mail about the copyright status of the logo:

Vouliez-vous dire de télécharger votre logo sur Wikicommons sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0 ? Les termes de la licence sont au bas de cet e-mail.

Discussion sur Wikicommons à propos des fichiers : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_June_19#File:N.F.-Board_logo.svg

I then went on to paste the entire CC BY-SA 4.0 license into the email...

Drats. Worth a shot though, no? kxeon talk 19:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said this in the message above, but if the N.F.-Board just never responded then maybe they might have intended in some way to label it as they did. Which means the image may not be labeled correctly after all and it may be able to stay. kxeon talk 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

July 15

File:2022 University of Idaho Murder Victims.jpg

NFCC#8 states 'For visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article ' but the article in question isn't a biographical article and an image of the victims isn't necessary to understand the crime. I'm not sure how it has been verified that all four individuals in the photo are the ones who were murdered either. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone can confirm the identity of those in the photograph by visually comparing to numerous other photographs available via social media, multiple news outlets, and multiple documentaries. The photograph is undoubtedly of the victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.178.109 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the file is used in the article about the people that were murdered to illustrate the people thereby passing WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that meet NFCC#8? Knowing what the victims look like changes nothing about understanding the killings. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The physical appearance of the victims in this case are an important portion of the reasoning behind the case. Additionally, this photo has been used by national news agencies throughout the case. 2600:1009:B198:7931:C0A2:B211:D158:C410 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation unsupported within the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aspects. The image is from one of the deceased victims' Instagram page. Here are a few sources that name each of them in the photo: [1][2][3]. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with all due respects, that might be the worst argument for a deletion I've ever seen. Just because that the article isn't a "biography" doesn't mean the picture doesn't fit there, it absolutely does as it is highly relevant to the article. An image of the victims isn't "neccessary" to understand the crime, but it sure does help, and there's plenty of other crime articles out there featuring pictures of victims. And what do you mean it hasn't been verified those individuals in the photo are the ones who were murdered? Look at any picture of the victims, and then look at that picture. It's quite obvious and doesn't require any official verification or whatever unneccessary measures you want to ensure it's the right people when anyone with the slightest bit of competence could tell you it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plectiscus (talk • contribs) 02:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an image is helpful does not justify a non-free image. The standard is would the image's omission be significantly detrimental to a reader? No, it would not. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyle McGinn performing a shoey in Parliament on May 22, 2025.jpeg

This image does not meet the non-free content criteria. The person this is illustrating is still alive. This is not an important "moment in Australian history". Steelkamp (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-free image of living person. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreekSlave.jpg

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GreekSlave.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Left some comments at the Commons discussion about the image's origin (it might actually be PD, but I wasn't able to find confirmation). For our purposes, there are freely licensed photographs already in use so depending on the outcome of that request, this will either be redundant to the Commons version or replaceable non-free use. hinnk (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

July 16

File:Henri Huet, LIFE cover, 110266.jpg

Replaceable with c:File:Life magazine – Jaws 45th anniversary issue (2020-06-19).jpg or other covers in c:CAT:Covers of LIFE magazine per WP:NFCC#1 (unless someone can prove that Henri Huet published the photograph without a valid copyright notice). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggested replacement file is of a 2020 cover of ife Magazine commemorating the 45th anniversary of the movie Jaws. It has no relation to the original image whatsoever so is not a suitable replacement. In particular, the subject matter of the suggested replacement is entirely inappropriate for use in the Henri Huet article. Cactus.man ✍ 10:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically referring to the infobox at Life (magazine), not the gallery at Henri Huet § Work. I admit I did not see the fair use rationale for the Henri Huet article when I nominated the file. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ JohnCWiesenthal I agree, it would be a sitable substitute for use in the infobox at Life (magazine), but Keep the file (not delete it) because the fair use rationale for use in Henri Huet remains valid. Cactus.man ✍ 15:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen of Hearts - Juice Newton (1981 - Netherlands release).jpg

De-PRODded by an IP editor without rationale. Uncertain why the IP editor did that. The other (standard) cover art is already used to identify and associate with the well-known version. I'm still unconvinced that the alternative cover art is necessary, especially per WP:NFCC#3a. George Ho (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Her Mother Susan Coconut Grove FL Circa 1974A.jpg

We already have free images of both Amy and Susan Billig, so this file is uneccesary. The "relation to mother" rationale is valid but since we already have an image of Susan holding a sign with Amy's face on it that could equally represent their relation I don't see this one being neccesary. ^EF⁵ 19:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Survivor 41 dvd region 1 season forty-one.png

Previously nominated only because it was "orphaned". Only participants were the admin and the uploader, and that's about it. Now concerning is the DVD cover being rehashed as a PNG file. Also, the other FFD discussion from 2022 favored the logo (File:Survivor 41 Logo.png), which was unfortunately replaced by the now-blocked uploader of this file I'm nominating now. (I can't help figure out why the previous nominator didn't look up and cite the other FFD discussion that I'm doing now.) George Ho (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Survivor 42 dvd region 1 season forty-two.png

DVD cover intending to replace the logo of Survivor 42 (File:Survivor 42 Logo.png) still probably more inferior than the logo itself. It just shows the series's host/producer and some generic logo. Also, uploaded by now-blocked user. The logo should be reused instead. George Ho (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Survivor 43 dvd region 1 season forty-three.png

DVD cover intending to replace the logo of Survivor 43 (File:Survivor 43 Logo.webp) still probably more inferior than the logo itself. It just shows the series's host/producer and some generic logo (and some background with silhouetted shadows). Also, uploaded by now-blocked user. The logo should be reused instead. George Ho (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jennifer Lopez - Booty (Remix featuring Iggy Azalea).ogg

The portion of the song is not supporting critical commentary about elements of the song. The only justification appears to be that this is about the remix but elements of the song are not discussed and therefore WP:NFCC is not met >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Why does having sourced critical commentary matter? Hearing the sample, I can hear fast beats and singing. (Don't get me started on lack of captions, which may not prevent a sample from being deleted potentially.) I appreciate identifying the song and trying to improve illustration of it, but the matter is whether omitting this sample will affect the understanding of the song.
As I see it, words aren't that complicated to grasp, IMO, and a few versions of the song were made and then released. Nonetheless, the one by both Lopez and Azalea was more successful, and a sample isn't needed to figure out the version's success and storytelling, right? Thus, I'm unsure why critical commentary should prevent the sample from being omitted. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

File:The Great British Bake Off (series 4) digital release.jpg

I uploaded an artwork for a digital release of The Great British Bake Off series 4. Nonetheless, I have kept thinking that a cast photo would be better representation of the topic. This all comes down to which image is more preferable: this artwork (or cover art?) I'm nominating, or the cast photo. Well, should use this image by default if "no consensus" then. George Ho (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheriff Woody.png

Replaceable with c:File:Disneyland Hong Kong - Toy Story Land IMG 5461.JPG or c:File:Disneyland Hong Kong - Toy Story Land IMG 5460.JPG per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessie (Toy Story).png

Replaceable with c:File:Shanghai Toy Story Land (cropped).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buzz Lightyear (Toy Story character).png

Replaceable with c:File:Buzz Lightyear sculpture of Toy Story Hotel Shanghai.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. (Although a similar discussion from April 2024 gained no consensus due to the lighting composition, someone could take a picture of the sculpture with better lighting and release it under a free license.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB12US Logo.png

The other copy (file:BB12LowRes.png) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. The newest screenshot of the show intro shows one of generic title cards of Big Brother US. It still doesn't help readers fully identify or contextually understand Big Brother 12 (American season); compare this to Big Brother 10 (American season) and prior seasons. Thus, it may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo should be used then? These are taken from CBS and used only in season 12. This clearly is a logo for the season and even can be used in the caption that states that. JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you so sure that this title card clearly identifies the season for readers to identify? Can readers identify and distinguish the various title cards whose logos weren't using numbers, like Big Brother 10 (American season)? George Ho (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... How about this cover art from Plex? George Ho (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, the nominated image is replaced by a clearer title card, IMO: File:BB12US Logo w Cast.png. —George Ho (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB14US Logo.png

The other copy of the title card (File:Big Brother 14 Logo.png) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. The newest screenshot of the same title card is one of generic title cards of the series and still doesn't fully identify Big Brother 14 (American season). Thus, it may still fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo should be used then? These are taken from CBS and used only in season 14. This clearly is a logo for the season and even can be used in the caption that states that. JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this cover art from Plex? (You may wanna use a web browser instead of a mobile app for better viewing, BTW.) George Ho (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or either poster seen in Facebook: poster #1, poster #2? George Ho (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, this image is replaced by this clearer title card: File:BB14US Logo w Cast.png. —George Ho (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB19US Logo.png

The other copy of the title card (file:Big Brother 19 (U.S. season).png) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. The newest upload of the same title card is one of generic title cards of the series and still doesn't help readers contextually understand Big Brother 19 (American season). Thus, it may still fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB21US Logo.png

The other copy of the title card (File:Big Brother USA 21 Logo.png) was PRODded and deleted without contest. The newest copy still is one of generic title cards, is similar to the other title card (File:BB19US Logo.png) used in Big Brother 19 (American season), and doesn't help readers contextually understand Big Brother 21 (American season). Thus, it may still fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo should be used then? These are taken from CBS and used only in season 21. This clearly is a logo for the season and even can be used in the caption that states that. It even makes a campier/wood 'Big Brother' in the logo to go with the camp theme of the summer. JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this cover art of the 21st season from Plex? (For better viewing, a web browser instead of the mobile app itself should do.) George Ho (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or either poster from Facebook: poster #1, poster #2? George Ho (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB24US Logo.png

The JPEG version of the same title card (File:BB24 Title Card.jpeg) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. The newer PNG version still is one of generic title cards of the series and doesn't help readers contextually understand Big Brother 24 (American season). Thus, it may still fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo should be used then? These are taken from CBS and used only in season 24. This clearly is a logo for the season and even can be used in the caption that states that. JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about one of the posters seen on Facebook: one potentially eligible for Commons, other totally non-free? George Ho (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded one on Commons: File:Big Brother 24 generic premiere ad.png. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

No objections. File still exists and is used on en.wikipedia where it was originally loaded and has a more permissive regime. Have forgotten the source long ago. Chris55 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wimbledon Poster 2025.jpg

Should be replaceable with the (non-free) official logo (this Jay Cubby 15:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is already used in Wimbledon Championships and can thus per WP:NFC#UUI14 not be used in 2025 Wimbledon Championships. So keep as is. Jonteemil (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

File:Commercial Sunscreens with UV and Non-UV solar radiation protection.jpeg

Not necessary to use a non-free image for this purpose. The text could be replaced by text in the article (WP:NFCCP#1), and the images do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article sunscreen (WP:NFCCP#8). The non-free use rationale says "There’s not other example images that show a collage of examples from around the world only utilizing free/fair use images for the collage", but a) I don't think the educational value of such a collage exceeds WP:NFCCP#8, and b) such a collage could be feasibly done with sample product images or simple/public domain designs. Consigned (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We typically don't use non-free images to illustrate general concepts. It is also possible to make our own free infographic as there are brands of sunscreen whose packaging is below the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robin S Show Me Love.jpg

This song has been subject to multiple re-releases, covers and remixes. There is nothing to suggest that the graphic for the 1993 CD single release is anymore significant than any of the other versions of the song released. The cover art is more generic than the main single artwork and is not subject to critical commentary. Its omission is not detrimental to the topic and so WP:NFCC is not met. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph EEZ Map.png

Map image was intentionally made by the uploader with the intent of WP:POVPUSHING. As per Wtmitchell, it is a WP:SYN of the user's interpretations of information from the given source into a map. The given source doesn't even state that the region corresponding the blue lines of the map is the EEZ itself; it is only the parts of the EEZ not disputed by other claimants. This is also as per Hariboneagle927's observation. This map must be deleted as misleading (based on an incorrect or personal interpretation of the cited source, so leans to WP:OR) and potentially WP:POVPUSHING. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rutgers University seal.svg

Either, if deemed below c:COM:TOO US, replace the first FUR with {{Information}}, remove all other FURs and relicense file as {{PD-textlogo}}, or, if deemed above c:COM:TOO US, keep the FUR with Rutgers University and remove the other ones per WP:NFC#UUI17. Jonteemil (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

File:Ali Daei in action.jpg

looks like a professionally taken shot, no EXIF, user has history of copyvios. likely not own work. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 12:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:VogueAdriaSummer2025.jpg

I'm not sure this qualifies as fair use, it seems more of a promotional image for the subject than strictly informational about the magazine, which is the reasoning behind the {{Non-free magazine cover}} template. ... discospinster _talk 15:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The subject of the article is a living person – it's longstanding consensus that images of living people almost never meet WP:NFCC per WP:FREER. There's no particular reason we have to use the Vogue cover to illustrate this article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thorpe Park logo.png

This logo seems to be made of simple text/shapes. I don't think it meets any threshold of originality. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This logo is likely above the UK's very low threshold of originality. It should probably be relicensed to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}}. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABC TV 2001.png

Also:

The 3D effects are likely above the threshold of originality even in the United States. We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABC News 24 logo.png

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

File:HSV7 1999.jpg

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. There is no mention of the "Melbourne's Alive" promotion in the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me. I Am Mariah...The Elusive Chanteuse (deluxe).jpeg

Does not meet WP:NFCC as the cover image was not subject to critical commentary and simply a zoomed in image from the original cover art. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

File:"My Life" by Oswald Mosley - front cover.jpeg

c:COM:URAA - copyright in UK didn't expire by 1996, so URAA applies, meaning this cover is copyrighted. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 08:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did not consider URAA when I uploaded the image. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is July 22 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 22 – (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 "===July 22===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

July 15

Recent nominations

July 16

July 17

July 18

July 19

July 20

July 21

July 22

Footer