Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

File:Paris Saint-Germain F.C..svg

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. ✗plicit 06:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris Saint-Germain F.C..svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Image is used in several articles regarding different sports teams of the club. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities (in this case, the club) should not be used in child entity (sports sections of the club) articles, and that logo specific to the child entity should be used instead. I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such cases. In most of the cases, badges of clubs or national teams are allowed on two articles as maximum (per previous debates such as The Argentine football team logo), so I need more clarification about this. - Fma12 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Procedural keep - sorry, not clear what you are trying to achieve here. If you feel an image should not be displayed on an article, simply remove it from that article. Giant Snowman 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - @GiantSnowman: in fact I'm not trying to achieve anything; on the other hand, I posted here to see if it is possible an admin or more advanced editor let me know what is the criteria used (or should be used) for this kind of images. Of course I know that I can remove the image myself, but I'm trying to avoid being involved in exhausting edit wars with other "susceptible" editors. Fma12 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Wikipedia:Image use policy and asking at the talk page might have been more beneficial. Giant Snowman 06:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - this isn't seeking a specific outcome for the file, but rather advice on how/if the file should be used on a specific page. Such advice is probably best asked for elsewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 19:08, 19 August 2021 (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:KGDL laMejor92.1-105.9 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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; no apparent use. — Pbrks (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete No longer the current logo of KGDL which has been sold and changed programming. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 21 August 2021 (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:KICA 980amESPN 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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; no apparent use. — Pbrks (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (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:Parents waiting KTC.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 ⚡ 08:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is non-notable and lacks contextual significance. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Sun8908 _Talk 05:11, 19 August 2021 (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:RonBaratono-onsetSFLL.jpg.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 ⚡ 01:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was only used for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Baratono. The photo is "Given to me from subject via facebook, edited by me in Photoshop." so it would need OTRS permission. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2021 (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.

U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue

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. Replaced by File:Space Achievement commemorative issue stamps 1981 USA-1912-19.jpg. ✗plicit 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant violation of WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3. There is no need for eight stamps as the same understanding would be obtained from having only one stamp in the article. Also, the FURs are invalid as they are not relevant to the use. The purpose is listed as To illustrate Space Shuttle space stamp but I can't think of any way to use the image where the purpose wouldn't be to illustrate the stamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, these stamps were issued as a single plate block of 8, so theoretically the 8 separate ones could be replaced by a single image of the plate block, since the article mentions that the stamps were in a plate block. If kept, these files probably need renamed, as "Space Shuttle#" isn't very descriptive and doesn't make it clear we're referring to a stamp (and some of these ain't even images of shuttles). Hog Farm _Talk 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "blatant" violation of NFC, which acknowledges and allows for "exceptions", per gallery display of the images in question, as has been pointed out twice. There is no violation of NFCCP #3: "Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis added) Again, there is no "one item", or single image, here at WP that displays all eight stamps in block form, that I know of. If there is I'll be happy to use it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, Hog Farm, Gwillhickers: I replaced these with File:Space Achievement commemorative issue stamps 1981 USA-1912-19.jpg showing the whole block in one image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer using the plate block image, rather than the separate images. We're only using one instead of 8, nothing is lost by using the single plate block image, and I think there's some benefit to showing it together, as it allows the intended layout to be seen and show the continuous background as connected. FWIW, my Scott Minuteman stamp album presents this issue as a single block. IMO, when illustrating setenant stamps, we should use the plate block when possible rather than individual images of the separate stamps, as the block is how the designs were intended to be seen. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2, Hog Farm, and Alexis Jazz: Thanks (Alexis) for uploading the image of the block of eight stamps. That will work fine in the article. However, I was hoping we could get an image that is perhaps not so blurry. I understand, NFC images have size and resolution considerations, but there are plenty of NFC images where there is an acceptable amount of clarity - this image lacks that. The original image at Mystic Stamps is much clearer, as was your original upload. Apparently you intentionally blurred the image. Now, however, the lettering in the images is barely legible, and the space shuttle and other items are barely recognizable. I would use your original upload, as it doesn't exceed size and resolution considerations for an image of eight stamps. "Low resolution" doesn't mean the image must be blurry, it pertains to the number of pixels. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwillhickers, I didn't blur it, I just scaled it down to meet the 0.1 megapixel WP:NFC rule. I've overwritten it and added {{Non-free no reduce}} but don't be surprised if someone tags it for {{Non-free reduce}} in the future anyway. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the new version is much better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (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:Gks-piast-nowa-ruda-99019.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 ⚡ 01:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC: former logo. Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technically it is the logo of the previous club GKS rather than the legally distinct KS however for obvious reasons the article isn't split into 10+ articles Abcmaxx (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFC#cite note-4. The logo for GKS should not be used in the article about KS. If KS does not have an own article due to not being independently notable, this means that the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Also, it is very similar to the infobox logo, so it doesn't add much. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. As pointed out by Stefan2, non-free former logos generally require that the logo itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 in order to satisfy NFCC#8. In addition, this older logo is really quite similar in terms of copyrightable elements which also means that it's not really needed for NFCC#3a reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2021 (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:KLKC (AM) 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: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; superseded by File:KLKC (AM) logo.png. — Pbrks (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2021 (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:KOBE LaEquis92.7 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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and logo is certainly copyrightable. — Pbrks (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This logo was actually being used in KOBE (AM): It was added here and removed about a little over a year later here. It appears that the logo was removed due to format change sometime around September 2019. Based on what looks to be the station's current website, the station is using a new logo, which would make this one a former logo. Since I also think it's too complex to be PD per c:COM:TOO and can't see any way to justify keeping it as non-free content per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-4), it can't be kept unless someone wants to try and justify its non-free use per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2021 (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.