Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

File:RMS Britannia Boston January 1844.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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny resolution, unused, no encyclopedic value FASTILY 03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete image also does not seem to match description, so I suspect an upload mistake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete evidently an upload mistake.

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:DuPage Drones logo.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: Speedy deleted Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete replace by File:DuPage Drones logo.png Timpcrk87 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, WP:G7. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-ed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 15 March 2016 (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:POGO-logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A better quality logo exists on Commons[1]. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what about the copyright status? This is obviously in the public domain in the United States, but the source country is Pakistan, and Pakistan's copyright act is probably closely related to the Copyright Act 1911, so Pakistan may have inherited Britain's threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's threshold doesn't apply as the image was already published (2004) by the moment Pogo broadcast in Pakistan (2008). Ignoring TOO, the logo at "Cartoon Network (Pakistan)" doesn't say or demonstrate it is from Pakistan, it was simply added to that article. On the opposite, reading those articles, the copyright may belong to Turner International India. Does someone know the TOO of India, because the logo is also at Commons as svg. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:11, 14 March 2016 (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:K. Michelle, sitting next to piano 2016.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image rationale is for magazine cover only, not the infobox of a living person. Such a non-free image as this would never be allowed for a living person. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake with this one, it was from a blog website not a magazine or magazine cover, so it can be used for the infobox of a living person (K. Michelle article). User:KieranWard94 12:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Please note I am a new user and I'm just getting to terms with using Wikipedia, everyone can make a few mistakes.) User:KieranWard94 12:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You still need to have the owner's permission to use it. Basically, they have to give their work away for free, and they have tell Wikipedia that this is the case. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as replaceable as the depicted person is not yet dead. It could maybe be instantly speedied due to the blatantly invalid purpose (to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question): the biography is not an article about the photograph (= 'the work in question'). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (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:Lucy Doraine.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image of Doraine exists on Commons[2] © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the picture on Commons is free. Commons links to a website which seems to have collected random pictures from random sources without stating what those sources are. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no, the following films starring Doraine are now in the public domain in the United States: A Napraforgós hölgy, Jön az öcsém, Die Dame mit dem schwarzen Handschuh, Der Stern von Damaskus, Die Gottesgeisel, Miss Tutti Frutti, Herzogin Satanella, Frau Dorothys Bekenntnis, Labyrinth des Grauens, Sodom und Gomorrha. Even if the image at Commons is not free as well, there are free images that serve the purpose File:Lucy Doraine.jpg has, failing NFCC1. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:17, 14 March 2016 (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:K. Michelle, Performing at the BET Honors, Jan 2015.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image rationale states falsely that this is a cover of a DVD, used only for a DVD article, when instead it is being used for decoration of the artist's discography article. Such a non-free image of a living person would never be permitted as decoration. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake with this one, it was from a blog website not a dvd cover, so it can be used for the discography of a living person. (Please note I am a new user and I'm just getting to terms with using Wikipedia, everyone can make a few mistakes.) User:KieranWard94 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Owner of the image must give permission for free use. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image to used to depict a living person in no exceptional circumstance, fails WP:NFCC#1. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (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:Byron Edmund Walker.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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused very blurry image, should be moved away to a more precise title at a minimum. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very low quality and unused. Moved from File:Walker1.jpg (speedied F2) which shadowed a Commons file. INeverCry 22:10, 7 April 2016 (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:Test1.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by Xavierb~enwiki (talk · contribs): Invalid claim that the uploader is the copyright holder. Probably {{PD-USGov-NASA}}[3] but I'm not sure if we have any use for the picture.
File uploaded by Silvanuche (talk · contribs): No licence provided, and I'm not sure if the 'own work' claim in the edit summary is credible. The image doesn't seem to be useful either. Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2016 (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:Wappen.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, File:DEU Castrop-Rauxel COA.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (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:Statue of Charlie Chaplin in Leicester Square, London.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This photography (how old is it?) is shadowing a larger size version of same on Commons. Sending it here since it's tagged {{Keep local}}; it seems like Redvers uploaded a lot of images which ended up appearing on Commons with higher resolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to File:Statue of Charlie Chaplin in Leicester Square, London.jpg (this being a better title). The redirect could be deleted to avoid shadowing the commons image.--LukeSurl^{t c} 11:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:Charlie Chaplin 2207447904.jpg to File:Statue of Charlie Chaplin in Leicester Square, London.jpg by LukeSurl (talk · contribs) at 11:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 13 April 2016 (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:Hyde Park Corner Royal Berks CWGC 1005510857.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local lower sized copy of a Commons image that is almost identical (save for having larger resolution versions) to the Commons one. It is tagged as {{Keep local}} as some other images that shadow higher resolution images on Commons, so I wonder if we should keep the local copy as it's the lower quality one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (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:Sailfish OS architecture.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this non-free diagram is not in compliance with WP:NFCC. For one thing, I don't see how it is contextually significance in the article and how its absence can be detrimental. For another, I think words alone can replace its purpose. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hint. Indeed I wasn't sure, if this (proprietary) image would be ok.

This graphic avoids to give a very detailed explanation within the Sailfish OS text itself. It is an original source which describes all the components and their source of the OS. Till today SFOS seems to be under development, so IMHO committing updates of the graphic is much easier than reviewing all this within text. It gives the reader a fast visual impression of which SFOS components are considered as free and which are not.

Do you think it would be better to do a similar sketch and publish them under an open license? --MyRobotron (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I am rewriting this message because I feel the old one might have been vague.) This image is a diagram. It says a lot. But does the article need to say any of that? My impression is that it is certainly usable in Wikibooks project, but in Wikipedia it is merely intricate details that interests a minority.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't share your opinion. The OS components, their teamplay and licenses are in interest for developers, contributors and administrators. The license is also an important attribute to help endusers to decide if they like to trust an OS.

This information aren't prominently communicated by Jolla (IMHO they mostly share an opposite image of an open, trustworthy, ... OS) so to give some clarification to the reader, this information need to be discussed. --MyRobotron (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All information in this is possible to be conveyed by text (prose) alone, or failing that, by a table or diagram that is free and contains the same information (fails WP:NFCC#1). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, if we just clone this diagram and refer to the original source it would be fine? I'm ok with that, but tried to avoid that work, as the original diagram gets updated from time to time .... --MyRobotron (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. He is not saying that. "Cloning" is certainly not okay. Please see WP:COPYPASTE for details. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2016 (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:Raw.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, creator is blocked, unidentified people nor useful information given to have a purpose. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image accompanying text says "Michelle Ahmad, personal photograph of Rawalakot". But there looks to be no mention of the name in articles, so delete, and also delete all the other revisions, as the alternative does not look useful either. This name should not be used again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2016 (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:Cynthia Scott.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 for being a photograph of a living person. The subject's illness that complicates getting a replacement immediately does not prevent from ever getting one. For a person whose article says that she "plans to go back into development [of films] once her health has returned to normal" the exceptional latitudes of using non-free images for e.g. recluses don't apply. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (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.