Wikipedia:Files for discussion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:IFD)
 | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this pag |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared. |
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[edit]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
[edit]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
[edit]Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
[edit]The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
| This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
- File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WeatherWriter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This photo is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The lack of a photo in the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Simply claiming it is an historical photo does not mean it meets WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – Following very long discussions at the Wikimedia Commons, there was a clear determination that tornadic photographs did pass all NFC criteria. The opening to the tornado’s section is “
This large, devastating, and long-tracked tornado caused major destruction to Somerset and London…
(emphasis mine). What does “large” actually mean? This photograph is describing what “large” looks like, and therefore, does indeed increase the reader’s understanding of the topic. @Rlandmann: (Wikipedia administrator) agreed that this logic was sound for NFC criteria, which is why dozens tornado photographs have been uploaded as NFCs, including ones deleted from the Commons, such as File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg and File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png. The bar for tornadic photographs was determined to be the description which is used by media outlets, since descriptive words like “large”, “small”, ect… do not clearly explain to the reader what the tornado looked like. This topic was discussed discussed extensively through RFCs and numerous deletion requests in 2024. So yeah, keep. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Keep(see below) - General concensus on Commons and here is that non-free images of tornadoes always satisfy NFCC guidelines. See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. EF5 14:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: What happens on Commons well sort stays on Commons in that it's not really relevant to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects; applications of Wikipedia policy need to be discussed/determined here on Wikipedia just as applications of Commons policy needs to be discussed/assessed over on Commons. Similarly, a local consensus discussing a the use of a particular image in a particular article on its corresponding article talk shouldn't be equated to a community-wide consensus; if someone is seeking wider clarification or a general consensus regarding non-free tornado images, it should be done at WT:NFCC, or in at least a discussion that involves more that would looks to be only three users. In addition, linking to a category page showing a bunch of non-free photos just means such photos have been uploaded; it doesn't mean their uses are WP:NFCC compliant any more than the fact some of the photos had been previously deleted means from Commons means they're NFCC compliant. I randomly clicked on File:Photo of the 2022 Winterset tornado.png, one of the files on that category page; the file has non-free use rationale's for two uses (which isn't prohbitted by current policy), but clicking on one of the articles it's supposed to being used in shows File:Winterset Tornado Wedge.jpeg (another non-free image of the apparently the same tornado) being used there instead: two non-free images of the same tornado aren't really necessary per WP:NFCC#3. So, claiming non-free images of tornados always satisfy NFCC guidelines is really an oversimplification of this and could indicate a misunderstanding of NFCC policy and how it's applied: non-free use is never condsidered to be automatic, and each use of non-free content needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.This discussion is about (or should be about) this particular photo and how its being used. As the nominator points out, simply saying something is an historic photo doesn't make it one per WP:ITSHISTORIC. The file's description states the creator of the video where this screenshot was taken has given "free permission" to use it to some media outlets under certain conditions; perhaps the creator would then give their WP:CONSENT for this particular screenshot to be used. The tornado also happened last week, which means there could be other images of it eventually showing up, one of which might possibly be already free or have the potential to become free. More images appearing, even non-free ones, and being used in various media reports, really weakens (in my opinion) any claim that this particular one is historic and should be the one Wikipedia uses. So, it would be helpful to assessing this particular file's non-free use if more clarification could be provided as to why using it is more justified than using any other photo for examples, the photo itself is the subjecr of sourced critical commentary or its the representative photo used by most media outlets (even now) in discussing the event. More clarification would be also appreciated as to how this photo can't be replaced by a free equivalent photo of the same tornado capable for serving the same encyclopecic purpose or even why textual description is in and of itself insufficient. Many Wikipedia readers probably have seen an image of a tornado, and most probably can understand what words "large" and "devestating" ("long-tracked" seems to be tornado-specific but not sure) mean. How does seeing this photo significantly improve the reader's undestanding of such context to the point that omitting the photo would be detrimental to that understanding? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- To point out, tornadic NFC photos have general acceptance. Several have passed GANs and are in use on several GA-level articles (examples of tornado NFC on GAs include 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, Greensburg tornado (also in a GA topic...also a level 5 vital article), 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado, 2024 Sulphur tornado). So, there is a decent precedent and already a general consensus that tornado photos do pass NFC criteria.
- Marchjuly you started by saying what is on the Commons, stays on the Commons. Well, that is why I pinged an English Wikipedia administrator (not a Commons administrator) who participated in this discussion on the Commons, where it was determined that tornado photo did qualify for an NFC on English Wikipedia. That is why it exists now as an NFC (File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg). Since that discussion occurred on the Commons, should we just disregard it entirely, despite the discussion being heavily about English Wikipedia's NFC policy, including an EN-Wikipedia administrator? Personally, I say that discussion is valuable for this discussion. In short, this is not as simple as "do we delete or not". This new deletion discussion is reopening what was closed and decided last year. If this photo does indeed not meet NFC criteria, then we need to have a larger RFC to actually determine what tornado photos meet NFC criteria vs not. The current consensus, even including an administrator in agreement, was that tornado photos almost certainly do qualify for NFC criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Commons and (English) Wikipedia are sister projects, but they're still separate projects with their own respective policies, guidelines, and communities: so, while there is some overlapping in certain areas (particularly when it comes to some free image licensing matters), there are also some important differences. Commons is more considered about the copyright status and c:COM:SCOPE of the files it hosts; Wikipedia is also concerned about such things, but it's also concerned about the encyclopedic use of the files it hosts. Things posted on Commons aren't necessarily totally irrelevant to what's being discussed on Wikipedia, but decisions related to files hosted locally on Wikipedia need to be made locally on Wikipedia; when it comes to non-free files, this means decisions need to be made in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In a similar, manner English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't apply the various other non-English Wikipedia. Some of those Wikipedias allow non-free content to be used while others don't; for those that do, the use of such content needs to be done it accordance with the policies/guidelines established by those projects.For reference, the user who nominated this file for discussion is also a Wikipedia administrator; moreover, they're a user who has done lots of work in the files namespace (including issues related to non-free content) that predates their even becoming an administrator. Their being an administrator doesn't, however, give their assessment any more weight than someone who's not an administrator; so, what matters more to this discussion isn't whether someone is an administrator per se, but whether the argument they're making is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines.As pointed out in WP:ITSFA, non-free use isn't automatically OK just because the file in question is being used in a GA or FA article. For sure, images used in GA or FA reveiws may end up being discussed, but more often than not these discussion are rather cursory and apply to how a particular image might be being used in a particular way in a particular article. Such reviews don't equate to be a community-wide consensus that all such image use is OK or has "general acceptance". Just for reference, you state 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado (a GA) as being an example of a non-free image of a tornado being "generally accepted", but there doesn't seem to be a single mention of any non-free files or how they're being used in Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado#GA Review. When the same article, however, underwent a FA review about a month later, one of the reviewers stated they had significant concerns about the use of non-free content in the article and specifically mentioned that an article passing a GA review doesn't make any non-free files used in it policy compliant. In an attempt to address this reviewer's concerns, you removed the non-free image in question (which was File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png), but you then added another one (File:The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.jpeg) to take its place after the FA review failed because "Commons determined NFF of tornados is ok", even though Commons has nothing to do with non-free content assessment that extends beyond c:COM:FAIR. FWIW, I'm just pointing this out as an example of why GA/FA reviews shouldn't, in general, be considered a way to establish any type of "general consensus" for this type of non-free use. If you're looking to start a broader discussion about this type of non-free use, the probably the best place to do so would be at WT:NFCC (the talk page corresponding to relevant policy page). Whether a RFC would be productive is unclear: an RFC that asks "Should all non-free images of tornados be considered to meet the NFCCP" would certainly fail, but perhaps there is another question that could be asked. RFCs tend to work best when the question being asked is pretty straight forward (i.e., there are clear "yes" or "no" answers); they don't seem to work very well and can easily get bogged down when there is lots of gray involved. Since relevant policy requires non-free use be assessed on a per use basis, it might be hard for such a thing to get resolved via a RFC, unless it's about a particular use of a particular file. Such a thing, however, is exactly what this FFD is designed to do. Generally, a single use of non-free content is considered already quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, and most of the time a non-free image of an "event" seems to have really been only considered appropriate per WP:NFCC#8, assuming all of the remaining NFCCP are met, when used for primary identification purposes at the top or or in the main infobox of a stand-alone articles about said event; using such an image in other articles or other ways, where the event might be mentioned, tends to be much harder to justify not only per NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. So, those are the things this discussion is going to attempt to resolve.Finally, if you want to let others know about this discussion you may do so per WP:APPNOTE. In addition to relevant WikiProjects (which you've already notified), I suggest adding
{{Please see}}templates to WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC. Before careful, though, about pinging/notifying individual users unless you're going to make an effort to notify users who might fall on both sides of the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)- I've already posted a lot (perhaps too much) in this discussion, but I'm going to add some comments on the other GA articles you cited above. 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was upgraded to GA status in September 2013, but the non-free image being used in the article's infobox was uploaded in November 2024; in other words, the file wasn't used in the version of the article that underwent the GA review. The current infobox image for Greensburg tornado was also added after the article was upgraded to GA status; in this case, its seems to be a replacement for the the non-free File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado.jpg and its replacement File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado 02.jpg. (The current infobox image was, for what it's worth, actually uploaded to Commons as File:Greensburg tornado on the highway.jpg, nominated for deletion by its uploader, who then re-uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free.) The GA review doesn't really have much of an in-depth discussion of the non-free use of images in the article and it involved just two people. Something similar could be said about the GA Reviews Talk:2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado/GA1 and Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado/GA1, both nominated by the same user and reviewed by the same user; neither of these reviews involved anything more that a cursory discussion of the use of non-free content in the corresponding articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, because as stated above, general consensus is that NFFs of tornadoes are generally acceptable. And please ping me when you mention me; makes it seem like you are talking about me behind my back. EF5 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also, other good examples just from me are 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2011 Cordova-Blountsville tornado 2011 Ringgold-Apison tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado, 2023 Selma tornado, among others. And them being nominated by me doesn’t change the fact that these are all GAs. EF5 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a general consensus established about any such thing. Two or three editors discussing this type of thing on Commons or an article talk page doesn't equate to being a general community-wide consensus at all. Several editors discussing this at WT:NFCC, on the other hand, could lead to something approaching such a consensus. As for the additional examples your citing, once again, a non-free image being used in an FA/GA doesn't mean is the use is policy compliant as explained in WP:ITSFA: a detailed assessment of the file's non-free use in such a review could help explain why its use is considered justifiable, but GA/FA reviews are usually more focused on prose than image use, and non-free content is pretty much never discussed in much detail if it's discussed at all. The GA reviews for two of the articles ("Cullman-Arab" and "Ringgold-Apison") were cursory at best and the GA review for the "Robinson-Sullivan" article doesn't seemed to have discussed non-free use at all.The first example 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado isn't currently using any non-free images. The non-free one apparently used at the time of its nomination was subsequently replaced by a free equivalent image within a month of the GA review, which indicates (at least to me) that the justification for non-free use was pretty weak per WP:FREER to begin with and probably should've been discussed more in the GA review of the article. The same thing could be said with respect to 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado; the non-free was that was used in that case was replaced by a free equivalent a few days after GA review was completed, which once again indicates the justification to use it was pretty weak. As for the remaining three examples, the use of non-free images in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the individual tornadoes themselves could possibly be OK, but they're not really historic images per se; so, their licensing probably should be tweaked to something like
{{Non-free fair use}}. Moreover, the uses of the two of those three images in subsections of the other articles 2011 Super Outbreak and Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 is pretty questionable per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, and items 5 and 6 of WP:NFC#UUI; there's really no need to use any non-free images in subsections of more general articles, particularly when the subsections have WP:HATNOTES linking to individual stand-alone articles and most of the content just basically summarizes what's written in the stand-alone articles.Finally, the Somerset-London tornado non-free image which started this FFD has also subsequently been replaced by a free equivalent, which means it's now fails WP:NFCC#7 and is orpaned non-free use subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. The fact that it was being used in a subsection of a more general article about a several tornados occuring over the same period already brought its non-free use into question, but being replaced by a free equivalent (at least what someone perceives to be a free equivalent) less thana day after it was uploaded means any justification for using it was really weak to begin with per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)- On your Cullman point:
- See the talk page, it was established that a NFF was allowed in the first place. It was removed because a relatively unknown CCTV video resurfaced online, meaning the NFF failed WP:NFCC#1 after the piece was found. Nobody in good-faith knew the video existed.
Same thing with the Ringgold tornado, except there was no talk page discssion.
On your outbreak page point:- At Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023, NFFs are treated the same as they would given the tornado that is the subject of an image doesn't have a page. Same with 2011 Super Outbreak. I'm not sure how that fails NFCC1, nor NFCC3. UUI5&6 says nothing about subsections and instead talks about "wars" and "images with their own articles", which is irrelevant in this context.
Now that CCTV of the London tornado has been found, speedy delete, but the big point is that people don't know which tornadoes have CCTV videos of them and which don't, which satisfies the "no free equivalent is available" at the time of upload. CCTV can take years to surface online (did they ever release that September 11, 2001 gas station video near the Pentagon?) so it's physically impossible to guess if or when CCTV video of a tornado will be found. — EF5 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- On your Cullman point:
- I don't think there's a general consensus established about any such thing. Two or three editors discussing this type of thing on Commons or an article talk page doesn't equate to being a general community-wide consensus at all. Several editors discussing this at WT:NFCC, on the other hand, could lead to something approaching such a consensus. As for the additional examples your citing, once again, a non-free image being used in an FA/GA doesn't mean is the use is policy compliant as explained in WP:ITSFA: a detailed assessment of the file's non-free use in such a review could help explain why its use is considered justifiable, but GA/FA reviews are usually more focused on prose than image use, and non-free content is pretty much never discussed in much detail if it's discussed at all. The GA reviews for two of the articles ("Cullman-Arab" and "Ringgold-Apison") were cursory at best and the GA review for the "Robinson-Sullivan" article doesn't seemed to have discussed non-free use at all.The first example 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado isn't currently using any non-free images. The non-free one apparently used at the time of its nomination was subsequently replaced by a free equivalent image within a month of the GA review, which indicates (at least to me) that the justification for non-free use was pretty weak per WP:FREER to begin with and probably should've been discussed more in the GA review of the article. The same thing could be said with respect to 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado; the non-free was that was used in that case was replaced by a free equivalent a few days after GA review was completed, which once again indicates the justification to use it was pretty weak. As for the remaining three examples, the use of non-free images in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the individual tornadoes themselves could possibly be OK, but they're not really historic images per se; so, their licensing probably should be tweaked to something like
- Also, other good examples just from me are 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2011 Cordova-Blountsville tornado 2011 Ringgold-Apison tornado (had an NFF at time of nomination), 2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado, 2023 Selma tornado, among others. And them being nominated by me doesn’t change the fact that these are all GAs. EF5 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, because as stated above, general consensus is that NFFs of tornadoes are generally acceptable. And please ping me when you mention me; makes it seem like you are talking about me behind my back. EF5 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've already posted a lot (perhaps too much) in this discussion, but I'm going to add some comments on the other GA articles you cited above. 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was upgraded to GA status in September 2013, but the non-free image being used in the article's infobox was uploaded in November 2024; in other words, the file wasn't used in the version of the article that underwent the GA review. The current infobox image for Greensburg tornado was also added after the article was upgraded to GA status; in this case, its seems to be a replacement for the the non-free File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado.jpg and its replacement File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado 02.jpg. (The current infobox image was, for what it's worth, actually uploaded to Commons as File:Greensburg tornado on the highway.jpg, nominated for deletion by its uploader, who then re-uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free.) The GA review doesn't really have much of an in-depth discussion of the non-free use of images in the article and it involved just two people. Something similar could be said about the GA Reviews Talk:2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado/GA1 and Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado/GA1, both nominated by the same user and reviewed by the same user; neither of these reviews involved anything more that a cursory discussion of the use of non-free content in the corresponding articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Commons and (English) Wikipedia are sister projects, but they're still separate projects with their own respective policies, guidelines, and communities: so, while there is some overlapping in certain areas (particularly when it comes to some free image licensing matters), there are also some important differences. Commons is more considered about the copyright status and c:COM:SCOPE of the files it hosts; Wikipedia is also concerned about such things, but it's also concerned about the encyclopedic use of the files it hosts. Things posted on Commons aren't necessarily totally irrelevant to what's being discussed on Wikipedia, but decisions related to files hosted locally on Wikipedia need to be made locally on Wikipedia; when it comes to non-free files, this means decisions need to be made in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In a similar, manner English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't apply the various other non-English Wikipedia. Some of those Wikipedias allow non-free content to be used while others don't; for those that do, the use of such content needs to be done it accordance with the policies/guidelines established by those projects.For reference, the user who nominated this file for discussion is also a Wikipedia administrator; moreover, they're a user who has done lots of work in the files namespace (including issues related to non-free content) that predates their even becoming an administrator. Their being an administrator doesn't, however, give their assessment any more weight than someone who's not an administrator; so, what matters more to this discussion isn't whether someone is an administrator per se, but whether the argument they're making is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines.As pointed out in WP:ITSFA, non-free use isn't automatically OK just because the file in question is being used in a GA or FA article. For sure, images used in GA or FA reveiws may end up being discussed, but more often than not these discussion are rather cursory and apply to how a particular image might be being used in a particular way in a particular article. Such reviews don't equate to be a community-wide consensus that all such image use is OK or has "general acceptance". Just for reference, you state 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado (a GA) as being an example of a non-free image of a tornado being "generally accepted", but there doesn't seem to be a single mention of any non-free files or how they're being used in Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado#GA Review. When the same article, however, underwent a FA review about a month later, one of the reviewers stated they had significant concerns about the use of non-free content in the article and specifically mentioned that an article passing a GA review doesn't make any non-free files used in it policy compliant. In an attempt to address this reviewer's concerns, you removed the non-free image in question (which was File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png), but you then added another one (File:The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.jpeg) to take its place after the FA review failed because "Commons determined NFF of tornados is ok", even though Commons has nothing to do with non-free content assessment that extends beyond c:COM:FAIR. FWIW, I'm just pointing this out as an example of why GA/FA reviews shouldn't, in general, be considered a way to establish any type of "general consensus" for this type of non-free use. If you're looking to start a broader discussion about this type of non-free use, the probably the best place to do so would be at WT:NFCC (the talk page corresponding to relevant policy page). Whether a RFC would be productive is unclear: an RFC that asks "Should all non-free images of tornados be considered to meet the NFCCP" would certainly fail, but perhaps there is another question that could be asked. RFCs tend to work best when the question being asked is pretty straight forward (i.e., there are clear "yes" or "no" answers); they don't seem to work very well and can easily get bogged down when there is lots of gray involved. Since relevant policy requires non-free use be assessed on a per use basis, it might be hard for such a thing to get resolved via a RFC, unless it's about a particular use of a particular file. Such a thing, however, is exactly what this FFD is designed to do. Generally, a single use of non-free content is considered already quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, and most of the time a non-free image of an "event" seems to have really been only considered appropriate per WP:NFCC#8, assuming all of the remaining NFCCP are met, when used for primary identification purposes at the top or or in the main infobox of a stand-alone articles about said event; using such an image in other articles or other ways, where the event might be mentioned, tends to be much harder to justify not only per NFCC#8 but also WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. So, those are the things this discussion is going to attempt to resolve.Finally, if you want to let others know about this discussion you may do so per WP:APPNOTE. In addition to relevant WikiProjects (which you've already notified), I suggest adding
- Weak keep -- Having looked at thousands of photos of these things over the last 9-10 months, my position is that the distinctive appearance of many (most?) tornadoes does bring them (barely) over the edge of detracting from a reader's understanding of a topic if it were not illustrated.This is especially true of tornadoes that were not widely photographed and which, consequently, the same photo or photos become highly recognisable as the tornado in question.As I pointed out previously to a couple of the folks participating in this thread, the case for keeping these images would be considerably strengthened if there were features of the tornado visible in the photo that were commented on or pointed out in the text. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the points you make could be reasonable justification in terms of WP:NFC#CS for using a non-free image; however, I think any text content about a tornado's features should, in principle, be reliably sourced per WP:NOR, and any contextual connection between such content and a non-free image should be strongly sourced. If, for example, a single representative photo is being used by all major media outlets in their coverage of a tornado or perhaps is the only known photo of a tornado, then that too would strengthen the case for non-free use; however, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of images for most major weather events these days given that so many people have the means to rather easily take photos and so many seem to be willing to do so even a great risk; so, singling out one non-free over another also seems OR-ish (at least to me) absent any kind of sourced commentary about the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I won't quibble with your take here; we're in broad agreement, and my keep is marginal. To clarify my position slightly, though: I'm not suggesting that contributors add their own OR-ish take on what's interesting or significant in the image, but that the NFC case is strengthened if the image captures features of the event that are already noted in the RS that the article is built from (in general; not the case here). An RS that comments on the specific image itself would be the gold standard here, but that's exceedingly rare and well beyond what's actually required by NFC policy, IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the points you make could be reasonable justification in terms of WP:NFC#CS for using a non-free image; however, I think any text content about a tornado's features should, in principle, be reliably sourced per WP:NOR, and any contextual connection between such content and a non-free image should be strongly sourced. If, for example, a single representative photo is being used by all major media outlets in their coverage of a tornado or perhaps is the only known photo of a tornado, then that too would strengthen the case for non-free use; however, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of images for most major weather events these days given that so many people have the means to rather easily take photos and so many seem to be willing to do so even a great risk; so, singling out one non-free over another also seems OR-ish (at least to me) absent any kind of sourced commentary about the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Zochrot at the former Lydda ghetto.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_17#File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg that files are deleted via a PROD. But because of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_5#File:Zochrot_at_the_former_Lydda_ghetto.JPG script will not allow a PROD so I made this instead. MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Allowances are made per WP:F8 as a courtesy for users who want to tag their own images with
{{Keep local}}for whatever reason (e.g., some image providers have had bad experiences with Commons), and there's not a pressing need to stop doing so even if the uploader is deceased given the licensing is VRT verified. In addition, the file was moved to Commons by someone other than the uploader back in April 2021, which appears to be roughly when the uploader was dealing with the illness that ultimately was the cause of her death. Even though the uploader's deceased, it seems like it would be a good idea to add a notification of this dscussion to their user talk page; some of those watching the page who were good friends with the uploader might be able to speak to the possible reasons why the uploader tagged this file as "Keep local". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EF5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. JayCubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. EF5 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- See also Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. — EF5 21:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. JayCubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the 2011 Joplin tornado article is valid) was that tornado photos almost always will qualify under NFF criteria as long as no free-to-use photos/videos exist. This consensus and admin confirmation came following a very huge and long RFC on the Commons, after the deprecation of a copyright template that was highly-used for tornado photographs. To me, the free-cam-video found by JayCubby would indeed mean Poplar Bluff's NFF does not pass the criteria. However, no evidence has been presented of Tylertown having free-use-videos/photos, so under WP:AGF & WP:ONUS, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.
- To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- It isn’t even visible in that video. EF5 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — EF5 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. JayCubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. EF5 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Reply to JayCubby Yes and no to your NFCC8 concern. NFC criteria is "most generous" (admin words) on English Wikipedia, for being more like a "low-bar" to pass. NFFs of tornadoes cannot just be for decoration. However, it is extraordinarily common (i.e. extremely rare if not) for RS to use a specific adjective with tornadoes. For example if you hear "large tornado". That does not really give a clear picture in the readers mind of what size the tornado is. An NFF of said tornado showing what "large" actually means passes NFCC8, since it "
would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic
" (NFCC8). That was why, generally speaking, tornado NFCs are allowed on Wikipedia; since adjectives are almost always associated with tornadoes (in a ton of reliable sources), and a photo of the tornado clears up what that adjective actually means. Random proof of that can even be seen during Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (happened days ago). One of the first news articles I found in a generic google search of "Kentwood" & "tornado" (one of the stronger tornadoes during the outbreak), I found WVUE-DT publishing an article literally titled "Large tornado tears through small town outside Kentwood; no injuries reported". Hopefully that better explains what the Commons consensus was on tornado photos. In reality, only free-to-use photos actually prevent a single (not multiple) NFC tornado photo from being used in an article/section on a tornado, given the fact adjectives are always used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)- @EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. JayCubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. EF5 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. JayCubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Will do. To clarify on the NFCC8 thing, we use "similar" planes because they are the same model, correct? The paint job may be different, but the model is similar. Tornadoes don't come in "models" ("classifications" vary wildly, a wedge tornado can be anywhere from 0.5 to 2.6 miles wide) and I genuinely couldn't tell you two tornadoes that look exactly alike or are of the exact same width. Sure, the color of the tornado (paint job) may be the same, but no tornadoes are created equal. Saying "a tornado that looks kind of like the one that hit so-and-so" in an infobox is just doing a disservice to readers. That also doesn't account for the fact that we are already seriously lacking on free and recent tornado photos. EF5 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. JayCubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. EF5 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. JayCubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. JayCubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — EF5 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per The Weather Event Writer Buffs (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral I think this would be delete per policy, but I do agree with the 'similar planes' argument outlined by EF5. I know long discussions have already been had on this per above, but from what EF5 argues I do think the policy should be changed. Cheers! Johnson524 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC) - Delete such a low quality image does not improve my understanding of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Heydaddycaps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screen captures from the music video don't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but modify In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. However, it should be a single image, not two. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- To be blunt, no, it's not all right to "treat [my] vote as 'undecided' if [I'm] unsure which one". I've stated my opinion on the subject and it stands as-is and so does my !vote (we don't actually "vote" on Wikipedia; we work to build consensus. Dismissing/downgrading my statement in this manner as somehow lesser than yours is inherently arrogant and condescending). I don't need to watch the whole music video in order to offer an opinion on whether a frame of it is appropriate within this context and neither should anyone else. I also recognize that my opinion is not the only one and am willing to be convinced otherwise, not have demands tossed at me. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Dismissing/downgrading my statement in this manner as somehow lesser than yours is inherently arrogant and condescending.
I didn't mean to come across as what you've described (hopefully inaccurately?). I just was puzzled by your votes below and your favoring possibly random screenshots, like this nomination. In this case, I honestly wasn't sure whether you favor either one of the singer's dances or the singer with a woman. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)- I don't care which one. Buffs (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- To be blunt, no, it's not all right to "treat [my] vote as 'undecided' if [I'm] unsure which one". I've stated my opinion on the subject and it stands as-is and so does my !vote (we don't actually "vote" on Wikipedia; we work to build consensus. Dismissing/downgrading my statement in this manner as somehow lesser than yours is inherently arrogant and condescending). I don't need to watch the whole music video in order to offer an opinion on whether a frame of it is appropriate within this context and neither should anyone else. I also recognize that my opinion is not the only one and am willing to be convinced otherwise, not have demands tossed at me. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Lilfreakvid.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Two-screenshot collage from the music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. (Free image of featured artist should compensate, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but modify In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. However, it should be a single image, not two. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Theregoesmybabyvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. I think a better clip could be chosen than this one though...pick one and replace, not add. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you watch the music video yet? Which scene/screenshot do you think readers cannot do without, i.e. why aren't words enough? From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. I'll treat your vote as "undecided" if you're unsure which one. Is that all right? --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et3rnal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the song in question. George Ho (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of the singer and background dancers from far-distance) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of the singer and background dancers from far-distance) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Lemme See.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et3rnal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this ("risque") screenshot affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see, the section describes mostly video synopsis. In your own words, how would deleting this ("risque") screenshot affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Numb shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tomica (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Screenshot of music video doesn't contextually signify the whole song in question. Also, easy to summarize already. George Ho (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep In this case, the music video is discussed in length and an image of the video is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Were you saying this just because you were copying and pasting your votes, the screenshot shows the singer with a woman lying down in a hospital, or why else? I have a hard time being convinced by your vote, honestly. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of a touching scene) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I take it back, I'll add one more thing here re:
Were you saying this just because you were copying and pasting your votes...
: how rude. I wrote my response and, because it applied to more than one thing, I reused it. I shouldn't have to justify what I wrote as being sincere. I didn't question your sincerity about 6 video images from the same singer. I didn't say "Do you just hate Usher or are you just trying to flex power here to push others around?". The arrogance at attempting to minimize my !vote over yours is galling. WP:AGF dude. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)The arrogance at attempting to minimize my !vote over yours is galling.
I never meant to do what you described. I just have had a hard time taking your votes here seriously, but then again, my rationales are probably generic as well. Still, I didn't multi-nom here because I figured the screenshots are probably too different to discuss. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)I never meant to do what you described. I just have had a hard time taking your votes here seriously.
Really? Let's start by just taking every comment "seriously". You may not have meant to do it, but you just did it again. Your continued patronizing remarks here are supercilious to the extreme. I'm going to stop replying at this point. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I take it back, I'll add one more thing here re:
- Same as above; not going to retype here. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Were you saying this just because you were copying and pasting your votes, the screenshot shows the singer with a woman lying down in a hospital, or why else? I have a hard time being convinced by your vote, honestly. In your own words, how would deleting this screenshot (of a touching scene) affect the understanding of the topic? George Ho (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep since there is enough sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Pinball Wizard Germany PS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikipedianerd123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Even if irreplaceable by this freer image, File:Pinball Wizard by the Who UK single.webp (portion of the British release), which is not subject to NFCC, the non-free German sleeve may still not contextually signify the original recording of the song or the song itself. Sure, it's relatable and more appealing than the freer image, but my concern is about whether omitting this German sleeve would affect the understanding of the song. If deleted unopposed, then the front cover may not be contextually significant after all. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Didn't realize that the front cover is also used in other continental European releases (discogs, 45cat). --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep more contextually significant than a picture of the record with nothing more than text. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - there's definitely too many images at Pinball Wizard, but this is a better image as far as recognizability goes than a basic image of the disc. It's not a policy problem to have a single cover in the article, so I'd say keep this and delete the other two instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those other two are free to use (just in this project). One of them is for the Elton John single, ya know. Why should an amount of images in the article matter, especially to mobile readers? George Ho (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- The other images are worthless. They're extremely generic. They're plain discs with plain text plastered on them. Terrible images like those shouldn't trump over images that are actually recognizable and representative of the respective subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Am I seeing WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here?
- May be "worthless" to you, but I think you know that the Who have been of British origin and a worldwide sensation, especially British and Americans. Right? The label from the UK single was how British customers identified the single back in those days. Like other British singles, the British edition wasn't packed in the picture sleeve, and I suspect the mass production would've been impossible to produce the picture sleeve in that amount back then (prior to late-1970s in the UK). If they bought a single packed in a picture sleeve, most likely the British customers could've bought imports of non-UK editions, like the German one, in other British independent music stores. Right?
- The Philippines edition of the Elton John single is all I can do as free use, especially to replace the cover similar to a compilation album. As I figured, others, like you, would treat any other labels disdainfully and indistinguishably, like the UK single. George Ho (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I read this part just now (
Terrible images like those shouldn't trump over images that are actually recognizable and representative of the respective subject
). You mean picture sleeves are "recognizable" and "representative" more than labels? This reinforces my view that picture sleeves are most preferable, have a lot of mass appeal, and has been relatable to people today, especially ones without historical context. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)- It's baffling to me that you would write a response that concurrently accuses me of IDONTLIKEIT and acknowledges my stance, whether you agree with it or not, was based around recognizability and representation arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Never intended to imply what you were saying. You and the other are very hard to convince because I know nothing else changes your mind. I stand by those "worthless" images especially to not mislead readers into rushed conclusions or uninformed decisions. George Ho (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's baffling to me that you would write a response that concurrently accuses me of IDONTLIKEIT and acknowledges my stance, whether you agree with it or not, was based around recognizability and representation arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The other images are worthless. They're extremely generic. They're plain discs with plain text plastered on them. Terrible images like those shouldn't trump over images that are actually recognizable and representative of the respective subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those other two are free to use (just in this project). One of them is for the Elton John single, ya know. Why should an amount of images in the article matter, especially to mobile readers? George Ho (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Operazione Gladio.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikitalovin1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Bogus license, no source. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- is screenshot from wikipedia Wikitalovin1 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the uploader was trying to bring over a copy of it:File:Operazione Gladio.png, which probably would've been suitable for non-free use in the Operation Gladio article. hinnk (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone want to write a fair use rationale for that article? The burden's on them. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:GMA Pinoy TV logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ntx61 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violation of WP:NFCC. Replacable with c:File:Gmapinoytv.png. 124.104.16.92Talk to me 13:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons licensing tag is probably wrong. COM:TOO Philippines says that copyright may be established in the Philippines "even if [the work] lacks a significant level of creativity" and "some logos that may be simple for the American jurisprudence may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines." This image is more complex than the Photo Sikwate example given there. hinnk (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gmapinoytv.png.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) - Relicense to
{{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}. Enwiki is not compelled to comply with the vague and suspected low Philippine threshold of originality; see Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works? for the reason (with respect to unfree Freedom of Panorama rules in around a hundred countries like the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Frederick Douglass Statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thebrycepeake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frederick Douglass Statue.jpg. Plausible case for fair use with the right template. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, and please add the right template. I recall recently reading a WMF statement that U.S. panorama laws do not have to be upheld on Wikipedia (can someone link that, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense for non-free use in Statue of Frederick Douglass (College Park, Maryland) only. Not sure what Randy means unless they're suggesting it be treated as a British work because of the sculptor's nationality. hinnk (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense to non-free use, but only if it's for certain that the photo itself isn't also non-free; if the photo is non-free, the file needs to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 regardless of the copyright status of the statue. The statue should be assumed to be protected by copyright per c:COM:FOP US given that it was installed in 2015 per Statue of Frederick Douglass (College Park, Maryland). The statue, however, can be treated as non-free content:
{{Non-free 3D art}}can be used for the copyright license, and{{Non-free use rationale}}can be used for the non-free use rationale. This only will work, though, if the photo is the own work of the uploader because only the copyright holder of the photo can release it under the type of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. A non-free photo of the statue would add another degree on non-freeness to the image and would fail WP:FREER since pretty much anyone could take their own photo of the statue and release it under an acceptable free license. So, if the consensus is that it's OK to assume in good faith that uploader and copyirght holder of the photo are one and the same, then adding a non-free license and non-free use rationale for the statue is fine. The EXIF data for the photo, however, is garbled and everything other than "Picasa" and "2.2" is unreadable (at least to me); so, asking for WP:CONSENT and VRT verification might be worth consideration. Finally, coverting the file's licensing to non-free wouldn't affect its use in the stand-alone article about the statue itself; however, the file would need to be removed from List of monuments to African Americans because there's no way to justify that use per WP:NFLISTS among other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC) - ^^^ What Marchjuly said. Buffs (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Oishi logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Technically not a request to delete, but a request to review the unfree status of the file. From the logic of Template_talk:Freedom_of_panorama_(US_only)#RFC:_Does_US_FoP_apply_to_foreign_works? (2012 discussion concerning copyrighted buildings from countries without commercial panorama exception like the Philippines), US law only matters on enwiki and enwiki has no obligation to comply Philippine laws, which do not recognize the high bar of the threshold of originality. Since the US has a very high bar of threshold of originality, the Oishi logo is eligible for {{PD-textlogo-USonly}} and this can be relicensed to commercial licensing tag {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}, so that it can be used in many more articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense to PD Text The simple shading here is not sufficient. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Kalinga Partylist.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Discussion to relicense to commercial, free licensing tag ({{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}), same case as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Oishi logo.png. In the eyes of lenient US copyright law for threshold of originality (not the restrictive Philippine TOO rule), this is not eligible for copyright as a simple logo. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense per nom. Simple text and a heart outline doesn't meet the threshold of originality in the U.S. hinnk (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense spot on nom. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Buffs sorry, but this needs an admin's intervention. There is no use to relicense if the original larger resolution file is under a deleted state. Relicensing debates do not fall under simple undeletion requests that warrant simple requests on WP:UNDEL. Admin interventions are required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that relicensing is not that difficult to fix. If you feel my edit was in error, feel free to revert. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fixing licensing alone does not help; for sure the deleted larger version must also be undeleted, which can only be done through admin intervention. Relicensing alone does not fix things. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that relicensing is not that difficult to fix. If you feel my edit was in error, feel free to revert. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Buffs sorry, but this needs an admin's intervention. There is no use to relicense if the original larger resolution file is under a deleted state. Relicensing debates do not fall under simple undeletion requests that warrant simple requests on WP:UNDEL. Admin interventions are required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Poison Help.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koman90 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The commercial containing the graphic is PD-no notice, so this should be PD if that is. JayCubby 02:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- mark as PD Buffs (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Validated Gluten-Free Safe Spots logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fyrael (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#8, not needed to "identify the brand Gluten Intolerance Group", as another already fair use image is used for that purpose, specifically File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. The design is below the threshold of originality in the United States (stylized "G" with shape and text are just like Best Western's "W" crown, shape and text). Tag with commons:Template:Trademarked and commons:Template:PD-textlogo. I forgot to sign my edit, which was dated as follows. TheFeds 03:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- !vote here added by User:TheFeds. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Commons Concur with TheFeds. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Gluten-Free Certification Organization mark.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fyrael (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Also fails WP:NFCC#8. It's not needed to "identify the brand Gluten Intolerance Group", as another already fair use image is used for that purpose (File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg). JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- I had particularly wanted this image on the page since it appears on many thousands of products globally and would be the most recognizable logo, significantly more-so even than the logo for the parent organization. I'm very unfamiliar with image use policy here, so is there any recourse for keeping this? Could it make sense to keep only this image and remove the parent company logo? That seems like it might fit the goal of using one image to identify the organization, even if it technically represents only a smaller (but more well-known) part of the greater organization. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Generally it is recommended to use as few non-free images as possible in an article. This can definitely be kept if its the most recognizable one. In any case, I would be in support of that. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. The design is below the threshold of originality in the United States (stylized "c" and "g" with border and text are just like Best Western's "W" crown, border and text). Tag with commons:Template:Trademarked and commons:Template:PD-textlogo. TheFeds 03:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete from en-wiki and move to Wikimedia Commons I agree with TheFed that this logo, along with File:Logo for Gluten Intolerance Group.jpg, are below threshold of originality in the United States (the bar of threshold here is pretty high, which in effect exclude gradient effects from the copyright). In case of File:Gluten-Free Certification Organization mark.png, stylized fonts may be copyrighted in the countries where threshold of originality is very low like the UK, but because it was created in the US, TOO-UK rules cannot be apply. If both files already had free-equivalent SVG files at Commons (which isn't available yet), we could delete both PNG and JPG files. 2404:8000:1037:469:C0B0:45BD:488C:9C5A (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Commons same as above. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:LTrygggolf1.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaiserb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:LTrygggolf2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaiserb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Derivative work of a wood carving by Swedish woodcarver Lars Trygg (1929–1999). Per c:COM:SWEDEN, "copyright expires at the end of the 70th year after the author's death". This work will not enter the public domain until 2070 ✗plicit 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and convert to Fair Use. Having both an example and the detail of the art he was known for makes sense. It appears to be the only image in the article and meets NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think we could do with only #1, but I guess it depends how important the detail is. JayCubby 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Unless the image is being used in the infobox in the article about the artwork itself, the use of a non-free media file of the piece must be accompanied by sourced critical commentary. ✗plicit 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- 4 sources are given at the bottom and all reference this type of work. It is the minimum necessary to show an artistic technique (detail and the overall effect)...it's the same subject, so no additional infringement attaches. Buffs (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think we could do with only #1, but I guess it depends how important the detail is. JayCubby 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus to keep one of the images and give it an appropriate non-free license?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
.svg?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Amen break notation (local copy).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RoySmith (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.svg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+March+27%23File%3AAmen+break+notation+%28local+copy%29.svg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.svg?lang=en){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg?lang=en){kind=link}
This file has two problems. It is {{C-uploaded}} but it should have been F8 speedied as soon as they are off the Main Page.
Most importantly, it was deleted from Commons as being copyrighted and we have no non-free use rationale:
File:Amen break notation.svg
This file was initially tagged by MIDI as fair use and the most recent rationale was: Transcription of a copyrighted composition. Propose re-upload to appropriate projects with (for example) Wikipedia:Template:Non-free sheet music Quick1984 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
209.227.161.66 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Hmmm. I don't remember any of the details of why I uploaded this, but I don't have any objections to it being deleted. RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure on this, but might it be short enough to be deemed uncopyrightable? Then again, the Commons version was deleted. JayCubby 14:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I'll be blunt, this isn't copyrighted. It's too simple (in musical terms). Just 4 measures. Likewise, it has been sampled and uncontested. Its copyright was not asserted prior to 1989 despite its use in other music. [1]. This is PD and credit should certainly go to the author. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: what do you think about this? Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Bedivere. I'm not a musician @Ikan Kekek: but even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough. The article notes that the author of the song could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations. And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song. Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough
I agree, but this is little more than a simple (repeated) drum line that has been used in countless samples without attribution. Given that this small drum line segment wasn't copyrighted at the time in 1969, it wouldn't attain its own copyright by itself any more than the color black could be copyrighted from Black Square.And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song
Indeed he is the copyright holder for the song. I do not see any viable reference that says he owns the copyright to the break. Just because he "could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations" doesn't mean he had any case in the first place. It can also mean that even if it were copyrighted, there would be no legal recourse. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work. You are also correct that it is possible that courts would have ruled against him. It will be interesting to see what the copyright experts at Commons say about this. (I am largely going to sit out on the discussion on Commons). Abzeronow (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Bedivere. I'm not a musician @Ikan Kekek: but even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough. The article notes that the author of the song could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations. And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song. Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: what do you think about this? Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Either this is PD, in which case the Commons version should be undeleted (which I've requested at c:COM:UDR) and the local version speedied as F8, or it's not and the local version should be deleted as a copyvio. There's no cause for a local copy to exist, either way, so we need not decide which is the case here. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – the Commons discussion was closed as "not done" and archived to c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-04 § File:Amen break notation.svg. It should be locally kept as {{non-free sheet music}} (or possibly PD, which is not absolutely excluded by Commons's decision, but I think they were correct in this case). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file was never tagged with this discussion. Note that the file has been nominated for WP:F7.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment In case I wasn't clear before, this is only 4 measures (mostly a repetitive 2).
The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work
. The fact that it's been used unopposed lends credence to the fact that even its creators do not feel it's copyrighted. This is no different from quoting part of a phrase from a book. The whole work is copyrightable, not an individual phrase. Examples of things that are famous and portions of larger works, but are not copyrightable in and of themselves: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times", "Call me Ishmael", "To be or not to be, that is the question", etc. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Shenzhen Metro Corporation logo full.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ASDFGH (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Wcam claimed that the original source of this file is not in SVG format. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 00:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Sinsyuan That link doesn't work. Sounds correct though, the current version from Sparktour gives a PNG from the Internet Archive as a source, and the previous version from ASDFGH appears to come from this version of the site which also uses a PNG. hinnk (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was notified by Wcam, who manages the appropriate use of files. When it comes to SVG, I'd like to download the SVG file (from enwiki or other site) and upload to zhwiki. Orz I am not good at managing or adjusting the SVG files. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 23:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Where is that message from @Wcam? hinnk (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hinnk: zh:User_talk:Sinsyuan#c-Wcam-20250503184200-File:Shenzhen_Metro_Corporation_logo_full.svg的來源問題 Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 00:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Now I see, this came up after you'd copied it over to zhwiki. Yeah, we need source information for the vectorization, sorry you ran into that. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hinnk: zh:User_talk:Sinsyuan#c-Wcam-20250503184200-File:Shenzhen_Metro_Corporation_logo_full.svg的來源問題 Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 00:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Where is that message from @Wcam? hinnk (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was notified by Wcam, who manages the appropriate use of files. When it comes to SVG, I'd like to download the SVG file (from enwiki or other site) and upload to zhwiki. Orz I am not good at managing or adjusting the SVG files. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 23:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Logo of Estonian Ministry of Regional Affairs.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tammbeck (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Estonian Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 11:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Commons description has a licensing tag and nothing else. I'd suggest we keep the PNG version until we have source info for the SVG, including who did the vectorization. hinnk (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hinnk: The vectorization appears to come from the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture website (direct link), seemingly cropped to omit the ribbon. ✗plicit 00:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Superceded. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Star Distribution logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GachaDog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violation of WP:NFCC, because GachaDog disguised the image which supposed to be in PD as "fair use", however the similar logo such as File:Star Channels 2024.svg is available at Commons, and therefore it's simple logo after all. So, this image needs to removed from English Wikipedia and move the same file to Wikimedia Commons, and the user who upload the file needs to be warned regarding the behavior. Thanks. 2404:8000:1037:15F:A56B:968E:1C04:B235 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- The underlying image looks like it's {{PD-USonly}}. Text with a relatively simple shape and coloring is not original enough for copyright protection in the U.S., but c:COM:ARGENTINA suggests that Argentina (where Star Distribution appears to be based) has a much lower legal threshold. However, this SVG doesn't appear to have come from the copyright holder of the logo, so based on WP:FREER we should delete and replace with a PNG version or a freely licensed, user-created SVG. hinnk (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
this SVG doesn't appear to have come from the copyright holder of the logo, so based on WP:FREER we should delete and replace with a PNG version or a freely licensed, user-created SVG.
What? The image source is irrelevant as long as it is accurately depicted. Why would we delete something that is PD? What would be the difference between this and "a freely licensed, user-created SVG"? Buffs (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)- I'm referring to the "Multiple restrictions" section of WP:FREER, which explains why vector images from third parties should be avoided. hinnk (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to commons Seems that this logo was created in the country that Threshold of originality is high (US), so i suggest this logo to be move to commons and placed correct license there. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Kinks-1965-Portsmouth.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Haggis MacHaggis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The uploader's justification states that the image would be used for critical commentary on the event or poster in question and not solely for illustration, but no commentary was added. The work was therefore only added for illustration and is not fair use. Tkbrett (✉) 11:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:NFC##cite_note-3, a single non-free concert tour poster used in the infobox an article about the concert tour itself implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the [poster] conveys. ✗plicit 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- The NFC rules you cite state that this is only true if there is "critical commentary", which the Template:Non-free poster says as well. There is no critical commentary present. Tkbrett (✉) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- And as stated above, the poster is being used in the infobox in the article about the concert tour itself. This is why articles about albums, songs, television, films, concert tours, etc., are allowed to use a single non-free media file—they implicitly satisfy policy, and do not require actual sourced critical commentary in every conceivable case. The footnote I presented above links to three separate RFCs that cemented that practice. Additional non-free files require sourced critical commentary, but this file is the primary and only one used. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Non-free poster explicitly says that the image should "provide critical commentary on the [event] in question or of the poster itself", and should not be used "solely for illustration". That is entirely different from something like Template:Non-free album cover, which does allow for illustration.
- Also, the link in your original comment points to the WP:NFC page as a whole and not to any specific note with RFCs. Tkbrett (✉) 15:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are either choosing to overlook or to ignore WP:NFC#cite_note-3 which I quoted above. Three RFCs are linked in that note.
- So, do you believe File:Snow White (2025 film) final poster.jpg violates policy as the poster is not discussed in the article, and do you plan to nominate it for deletion? I'd really like to know your answer. ✗plicit 00:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I did not overlook or ignore anything; your original link was broken.
- I pointed out that Template:Non-free album cover and Template:Non-free poster provide different rationale wording, but you ignored that and are now pointing to another template. Template:Non-free poster writes the image should "provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself" and should not be used "solely for illustration". The uploaded image fails to satisfy the criteria of the template as currently worded. Tkbrett (✉) 01:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- To no surprise, you've completely dodged the question. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that Template:Non-free film poster has the exact same wording as Template:Non-free poster, but you don't want to address that? Perhaps is underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of policy.
- WP:NFC, the supplemental page for WP:NFCC, clearly lays out that representative media files, whether it be album covers, single covers, film posters, book covers, television logos/title cards, concert tour posters, company logos, character photos, and so on, when used in the infobox that is atop the article about the subject in question, automatically meet the contextual significance criterion. But you continue to be hung up on the wording of a template. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The NFC rules you keep linking write that promotional material, such as posters, should only be included "For critical commentary" (WP:NFCI). This was pointed out to you in my first response, but you are still pointing to different examples. I have twice pointed out that the rationales for fair-use of album covers and posters is different – both at the respective templates and at WP:NFCI – but you are bringing them up again. Tkbrett (✉) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- And as stated above, the poster is being used in the infobox in the article about the concert tour itself. This is why articles about albums, songs, television, films, concert tours, etc., are allowed to use a single non-free media file—they implicitly satisfy policy, and do not require actual sourced critical commentary in every conceivable case. The footnote I presented above links to three separate RFCs that cemented that practice. Additional non-free files require sourced critical commentary, but this file is the primary and only one used. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- The NFC rules you cite state that this is only true if there is "critical commentary", which the Template:Non-free poster says as well. There is no critical commentary present. Tkbrett (✉) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Explicit. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
_final_poster.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Screenshot 2025-04-18 182807.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cedaria00 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
May not be completely a work of the US government since we don't know where the photograph Trump is holding is from, though I've heard it's just from a Twitter/X user. There still might be a fair use rationale for keeping it, though it doesn't seem crucial for the article it's included in. If we do keep it the file name should probably be changed at least. FallingGravity 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep/rename While we don't know the specificity of the source of the photo in the photo, it is unquestionably relevant to the issue at hand which is shaping up to be a defining component of his Presidency. At a bare minimum a FUR can be added. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- At a bare minimum a FUR is warranted. Buffs (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC) - I think it's de minimis. Bremps... 17:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think de minimis applies since the whole point of the Trump photo is to showcase the other photo. FallingGravity 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not conversant in the image use policy and won't leave a !vote, but wanted to note the relevance that Buffs appealed to has shot up in recent days, with the President's official stance now being that the image is unaltered, and that he could bring Abrego Garcia back, but he won't, due to misinformation such as this. I don't think what's in this image could be satisfactorily covered by text alone. --Kizor 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and re-tag as non-free if necessary; image tells a thousand words in this case and is not replaceable. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, this image is pretty significant since it directly shows Trump promoting falsehoods about Garcia having an "MS-13 tattoo". Though the image should probably be renamed. I don’t think the MS-13 edit is copyrighted but a fair-use rationale could be added if necessary. ApexParagon (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
[edit]Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
May 22
[edit]
- File:Spin Master logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pbrks (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
There seems be be confusion with licensing i noticed that this file has both a non free fair use rationale and a ineligible for copyright template not sure what one is accurate for this file Isla🏳️⚧ 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Commons I believe threshold of originality rules in Canada is roughly similar to the United States. If this file deemed ineligible for copyright and below threshold of originality in Canada, the same thing apply for the US as well, and vice versa. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I thought Canada was more like the low-TOO UK? JayCubby 00:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Recent nominations
[edit]May 23
[edit]
- File:Sonic Crackers and Knuckles Chaotix comparison.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheJoebro64 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 15#File:Sonic Crackers shot.png, the top screenshot fails WP:NFCC#4 because it comes from a leaked development ROM that is not known to ever seen an official release (see WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). (Does WP:G4 apply here?) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Was published by UGO Networks so meets previous publication criterion. JOEBRO64 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Said screenshot still originates from the leaked ROM. Compare Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 12#File:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg for another example of a file that has been printed outside of Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Richard "Rick" Rendon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardRendon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
![21:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)](/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion#c-Timtrent-20250523214400-File:Richard_"Rick"_Rendon.png){kind=link}
- Delete WP is not an image host; no assertation of notability. Unencyclopedic. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Palmcalc41.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hoshie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Simple button design, PD-ineligible layout, and non-creative design, therefore the whole thing should be PD. JayCubby 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- mark as PD without a doubt. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
May 24
[edit]
- File:Mercy in swimsuit.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soulbust (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fair use rationale is plainly mistaken. While it does illustrate the subject, it is low-resolution, and it's plausible no free equivalent currently exists, the idea that no free alternative "could be created that would adequately give the same information" is plainly wrong. Even if Mercy is a copyrighted character and so no "free" alternative could exist, a much freer alternative could exist which isn't taken from Twitter without permission. A similar thing happened recently with Gardevoir fan art which was deleted. While non-trivial, it would be 100% possible to commission an artist or to create such a work oneself, making it "an example of sexualization of an Overwatch character in fan-produced media." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. An artwork or cosplay photo released into public domain could serve the same purpose, so there is a "freer alternative" since this isn't just meant to show the design of Mercy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete and comment Not disagreeing with Zx that it can be replaced, but I feel a cosplay photo wouldn't fulfill the majority of what the article is discussing, which is about third-party porn being produced. Additionally artwork couldn't be released in the public domain in this sense for commons, as it'd be a rendition of a copyrighted character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – Agreed on both points: a third-party cosplay would be meaningfully different in a way that detracts from its relevance to the article and that digital Mercy artwork could not be placed into the public domain. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- @TheTechnician27: If I may, it seems part of the problem is that the author was not reached out to for permission. I have a twitter account and would be willing to (and can even archive it properly). And if that fails we can open a discussion on WP:VGCHAR on a possible alternative image. I think a particular useful point here is that this was cited in a published article as an example of the material, where a random commission would be, well, just a random commission.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I made the change almost 3 years ago and explained why here. I think a better solution has been found by Kung Fu Man's suggestion that the author can be reached out to for permission and apologies for not having done so initially 3 years ago. I do think the idea that this is a genuine example of the material as opposed to a random commission is an important note and exactly what I was going for, though I do suppose a random commission could plausibly mimic the style. Just in case this comes up, I have no problem with the image being lewder (as per WP:NOTCENSORED) and I view this particular example as on the tamer/milder end of the spectrum of what it could be. I get the idea behind the cosplay suggestion, but would be opposed to that as a replacement. Soulbust (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed with WP:NOTCENSORED, although I think the image you chose strikes an effectively perfect balance to demonstrate the subject matter without distracting from the article. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of asking about getting permission to use, since every time I've done it it was for the sake of using it on Commons where it must be under a copyleft license (I think that can differ on Wikipedia). I'd have no objections at all to Kung Fu Man trying, and I imagine an artist may treat that as very good publicity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Eden cheese logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xander Wu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Relicensing debate: this logo may be copyrighted in the Philippines due to non-existent threshold of originality standard (c:COM:TOO Philippines), but enwiki is not obliged to follow the not-so-Wikimedia-friendly copyright law of the Philippines, by the logic of Template talk:Freedom of panorama (US only)#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?. This logo must be relicensed to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}, so that it can be reused in more articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relicense per nom. Well beneath the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hinnk are the deleted revisions also beneath US TOO? If so, those must be restored as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- You know I can't view them, right? hinnk (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hinnk are the deleted revisions also beneath US TOO? If so, those must be restored as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Sonnadhu Nee Thanaa.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rajeshbieee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
It appears this is not the 1978 film as I checked the link. In the credits, the cast/crew are completely different. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F9 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Devil Wears Prada drummer Daniel Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AdobongPogi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Nominated for speedy deletion by me before it was reverted by uploader who only changed the source and author; both new and previous source did not have a license. Image is by Chelsea Lauren for Getty Images; see https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/drummer-daniel-williams-of-the-devil-wears-prada-performs-news-photo/147516476. reppoptalk 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Should note that it would not be acceptable under NFCC due to WP:GETTY: A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images). reppoptalk 09:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F9 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
_photo,_2015.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Dave Shapiro (music agent) photo, 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AdobongPogi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
_photo,_2015.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+May+24%23File%3ADave+Shapiro+%28music+agent%29+photo%2C+2015.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_photo,_2015.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_photo,_2015.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
Nominated for speedy deletion by me before it was reverted by uploader who only changed the source and author; both new and previous source did not have a license. New image by Stephanie Siau for Sound Talent Group as provided by the AP, see https://apnews.com/article/dave-shapiro-died-plane-crash-472ba1f06088b1dfc7880cbd15ef2e28. Old image by CreativeLive on YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js3RzLn9d4. reppoptalk 09:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
_photo,_2015.jpg){kind=link}
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- File:First-National-Pictures-Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WFinch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Possible violation of NFCC and invalid fair use rationale because of two factors. First, this file has invalid license due to this file may be low quality (in jpg), and the second and most important, the logo was made in 1924, therefore i should be a public domain long time ago. Because of these reasons, this file should be deleted from English Wikipedia, and if possible, transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons and tag (PD-US-1923) or similar license and even (SVG|logo) 103.111.102.118 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete from local en-wiki and transfer to Commons This logo was created in 1924. Due to fact that it was created more than a hundred years ago and its copyright was assumed to be expired six years ago (if they register the logo), i think this file needs to be deleted and transfer to Wikimedia Commons as soon as possible. Thank you. 103.41.171.100 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Transfer to Commons There are a few versions of the logo, some created after 1929, but the one in File:Twinkletoes (1926).webm is close enough that it should be safe to say this wouldn't be protected under copyright anymore. hinnk (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Transfer to Commons No evidence this logo (or subsequent versions) maintained any copyright protections as required at the time. They are all PD. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:MartinellisBottle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jibbajabba (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not irreplaceable, as a user-created photo of the bottle might not violate copyright. JayCubby 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete User could create a similar image that would not violate copyright. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
May 25
[edit]
- File:Magic Cross piercing.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NorthernWinds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't think this is reasonable fair use. It would be entirely possible to create a free alternative to this diagram, thereby failing the "Not replaceable" criterion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Wikimedia should let uploaders know of this policy when uploading (during the upload process, I did not see the non replaceable criterion). Indeed it can be replicated and replaced. Is there some kind of noticeboard I can put it on for people to replicate? NorthernWinds (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#1. The file upload wizard already requires uploaders to confirm that they "have read the Wikipedia rules on Non-Free Content" and lets them know that they will need to demonstrate "It cannot be replaced by any other, free illustration that might yet be created". hinnk (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
May 26
[edit]
- File:Jordan and others.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vintagekits (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Kirche in der Krim.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gomek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Wrong license. Derivative work. Image could be in public domain due to age. Sreejith K (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Query Source? Publishing date? Without more info, it's REALLY hard to tell. Buffs (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Listowel-ErinGoBrath.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Warren.buckley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Derivative of what? A 19th-century 3D plaster relief on the front of a building? Which, even if it didn't meet PD-old, would be Commons-eligible under COM:FOP Ireland (as a three dimensional artwork in a public place)? Guliolopez (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Should be PD. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Listowel-MaidOfErin.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Warren.buckley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Derivative of what? A 19th-century 3D plaster relief on the front of a building? Which, even if it didn't meet PD-old, would be Commons-eligible under COM:FOP Ireland (as a three dimensional artwork in a public place)? Guliolopez (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep same as above. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Tamil Genocide acts, Mullivaikkal Massacre, Displacement.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yarohj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Questionable Non-free use rationale, US State Department has stated in the report that said images does not belong to them and as not share the source. The author has not established that these images are linked to the Genocidal acts of Sri Lanka Army which did the Tamil genocide. US State Department report as no mention of Genocidal acts. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep This file was first nominated for speedy deletion by the above user ÆthelflædofMercia, despite when a clear fair use rationale was given. The image is critically important for illustrating the article on the Tamil Genocide, particularly in the context of the Mullivaikkal massacre in 2009. The image is in low resolution, used in a limited and encyclopedic context and cannot be replaced with freely licensed alternatives, as there is no similar or related media alternatives that are available.
- Notably, the same user again nominated the file under a different deletion criterion as the first attempt of deleting it failed, raising concerns about potential WP:IDHT behavior and now spamming notices to do anything to remove anything related to Tamil genocide on Wikipedia, Its like the user's sole intention is to remove the file no matter what, doesn't matter what rationale is given.
- The authenticity and context of the image are established and supported by extensive reliable sources in the article itself, including documentation from the U.S. State Department report confirming it was taken in Mullivaikkal during the events of 2009. The image is directly relevant to the content discussed in the article, and its inclusion meets Wikipedia's fair use criteria:
- Purpose: Used for commentary and critical historical documentation in an encyclopedic entry.
- Minimality: Low-resolution image used to illustrate a specific event.
- Contextual integrity: Supported by extensive sources and tied directly to verified historical incidents.
- Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event. --Yarohj (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yarohj, had repeatedly (two times [2]) uploaded this collection of images in higher resolution in WikiCommons on a US Government owned media license. I pointed out that the US State Department has stated in its report that these are not owned by them and another image has been removed for copyright issues. Thereafter these were deleted. Therefore, I reported it under the same criteria. Infact, it appears that Yarohj is engaged in Wikipedia:Advocacy, I mean Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event.. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- I know, as said all you have done is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to anything related to Tamil Genocide, repeated nominations of deletion notices does not matter if admin declines it repeatedly, keep spamming random guidelines/notices to get what you want, that's all you have been doing, you have again now nominated another image related Tamil Genocide, this time, its a book cover, which also has clear non-free use rationale and uploaded many years ago, its seems that you don't understand or care about fair-use policy or the rationale behind its WP:NFC use. Yarohj (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yarohj, had repeatedly (two times [2]) uploaded this collection of images in higher resolution in WikiCommons on a US Government owned media license. I pointed out that the US State Department has stated in its report that these are not owned by them and another image has been removed for copyright issues. Thereafter these were deleted. Therefore, I reported it under the same criteria. Infact, it appears that Yarohj is engaged in Wikipedia:Advocacy, I mean Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event.. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Removing this image would significantly detract from the article’s informative value, encyclopedic discussion and visual documentation of a major humanitarian event. --Yarohj (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
![[2]](/w/index.php?title=File:Tamil_genocide.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep per Yarohj. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete a free alternative can be created because these specific images aren't the only possible representation of the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect, plenty of Sri Lankan works depicting the horrific event are still copyrighted per c:COM:Sri Lanka. Works by identified Sri Lankans are still copyrighted if they're still living to this date, especially ones from 1950s to 2000s. Hard to find freer anonymous works, actually. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just because it's hard to find one doesn't mean that there is no realistic possibility - rules in the US are similar. We don't have free reign to upload non-free images of everything just because we don't have a free one at the current second. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- A hypothetical free alternative doesn’t override valid non-free use under WP:NFCC. As @George Ho noted, nearly all relevant works remain copyrighted. It’s not just about what's available “at the current second”, it’s been over 15 years, and no free equivalent has been available and it cannot be newly created, this is history and as stated above, the use of it is important for the article’s encyclopedic discussion, that's why Wikipedia even allows non-free media, to serve for encyclopedic purpose and also have to note, that many comparable historical topics use non-free media too where no suitable free alternatives exist. Yarohj (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Yarohj, in this case the issue remains that there has been no clear ownership of these images established. The rational presented in the image is not clear. Hence, we can't just upload non-free images without properly establishing its ownership. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Knowing who the author/owner is doesn't change the basics. We know these are likely copyrighted or are US State Department works. We just don't know by whom. The question is whether Fair Use applies. We can apply fair use even if we aren't 100% sure who the owner is. As images of atrocities cannot be replaced, Fair Use is generally applicable when describing the event(s). In contrast, if we were talking about a building that is somewhere or a public figure, those CAN be replaced with a free alternative. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Yarohj, in this case the issue remains that there has been no clear ownership of these images established. The rational presented in the image is not clear. Hence, we can't just upload non-free images without properly establishing its ownership. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- A hypothetical free alternative doesn’t override valid non-free use under WP:NFCC. As @George Ho noted, nearly all relevant works remain copyrighted. It’s not just about what's available “at the current second”, it’s been over 15 years, and no free equivalent has been available and it cannot be newly created, this is history and as stated above, the use of it is important for the article’s encyclopedic discussion, that's why Wikipedia even allows non-free media, to serve for encyclopedic purpose and also have to note, that many comparable historical topics use non-free media too where no suitable free alternatives exist. Yarohj (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just because it's hard to find one doesn't mean that there is no realistic possibility - rules in the US are similar. We don't have free reign to upload non-free images of everything just because we don't have a free one at the current second. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect, plenty of Sri Lankan works depicting the horrific event are still copyrighted per c:COM:Sri Lanka. Works by identified Sri Lankans are still copyrighted if they're still living to this date, especially ones from 1950s to 2000s. Hard to find freer anonymous works, actually. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as per fair use policy Oz346 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as per fair use policy.There is no free alternative.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Lose My Breath (Screenshot).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+May+26%23File%3ALose+My+Breath+%28Screenshot%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
Screenshot of the group in music video less likely to contextually signify (the music video itself or) the song in question. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete: This image doesn't really illustrate what happens in the video, i.e. Destiny's Child having a dance-off in an alleyway. The image looks more like a promotional photo for the video rather than an accurate depiction of the video's plot. A better one is needed. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete While the article does have significant commentary, I don't think this image shows any of what is described. I'd be ok if it actually showcased some of that...but not this one. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ResolutionsPerMinute and Buffs: I added two screenshots depicting the synopsis overall, I hope. I wasn't sure whether two groups facing each other would be enough, so I added the third group image. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't really change my !vote on this image. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to change your vote on this JPEG image, actually. I am undecided on whether one or two PNG screenshots that I uploaded suffice. (I'm trying to not list one of the screenshots I uploaded on FFD, to put this another way.) George Ho (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Both images you added look fine, but if I had to pick just one, it would be the "warmup" image. My opinion on the original file still stands. Thanks! ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- I could see either way on this one. So, with that in mind, I'd say keep both as you are attempting to illustrate the contrast. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to change your vote on this JPEG image, actually. I am undecided on whether one or two PNG screenshots that I uploaded suffice. (I'm trying to not list one of the screenshots I uploaded on FFD, to put this another way.) George Ho (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't really change my !vote on this image. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ResolutionsPerMinute and Buffs: I added two screenshots depicting the synopsis overall, I hope. I wasn't sure whether two groups facing each other would be enough, so I added the third group image. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
May 27
[edit]
- File:Joseph D. Ward.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmcewenjr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Massachusetts government works are public domain, so it may be safe to treat this as PD. JayCubby 00:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- relabel as PD per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Camp belknap.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Senorelroboto (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. There is no evidence to suggest that the text, which is dated 1996, is freely licensed. As c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs states, "detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs [...] are almost always copyright-protected". ✗plicit 06:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete not PD and replaceable by text. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Gangster logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zink Dawg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploaded for Portal:Gangs, no other use. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Mild keep in-use on user page. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
_street_art_2019.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Westdene (Johannesburg) street art 2019.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Setzor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
_street_art_2019.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+May+27%23File%3AWestdene+%28Johannesburg%29+street+art+2019.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_street_art_2019.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_street_art_2019.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
_street_art_2019.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi there. I noticed the file has been marked for discussion as a possible derivative work.
- The photograph was taken by me on 20 April 2019 at 10 Monmouth Road, Westdene, Johannesburg, South Africa and shows a piece of public street art that was permanently installed in a public place.
- My understanding, per COM:FOP (freedom of panorama) and COM:DW (derivative works), is that where freedom-of-panorama applies the photograph is permissible provided it is my own original capture and the artwork is lawfully visible from a public space.
- Could you please indicate which specific policy concern triggered the tag? If there is a jurisdictional issue (e.g. FOP does not cover public art in the Republic of South Africa) I am happy to supply additional information or adjust the licence as required.
- Until then, I believe your “derivative work” notice is in error. I would appreciate you withdrawing this, or, if there is a genuine copyright issue, a clear explanation so I can address it promptly. Setzor (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete WP:FOP applies to English Wikipedia, not c:COM:FOP. Photographs of two-dimensional works like murals are treated as non-free images. hinnk (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Reviewed COM:FOP and accept that the mural falls outside US FoP. Happy for the file to be deleted, thanks for feedback. Setzor (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete All parties agree on deletion after discussion & better understanding of FOP/Derivatives. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Wall mural in Westdene, Johannesburg (2016).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Setzor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+May+27%23File%3AWall+mural+in+Westdene%2C+Johannesburg+%282016%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Hello again.
- You have now placed a second “derivative work” tag on a photograph that I personally took. I need to make the following absolutely clear:
- Original authorship: I took both photographs myself. The RAW files and full EXIF data are available on request.
- Freedom of panorama: The artwork is permanently installed in a public place in The Republic of South Africa, where FoP covers such imagery (see COM:FOP). No additional permission is required for a photo taken from a public vantage point.
- Policy citations: You have not pointed to any specific clause in COM:DW or any other policy to justify your actions.
- Tagging files without a policy basis creates needless work for patrollers and risks deleting perfectly valid content. This is disruptive under COM:POINT.
- Next steps
- If you believe there is a genuine copyright problem, please quote the precise policy passage and explain how it applies.
- Otherwise, remove the tags from both files immediately.
- If no substantive policy rationale is provided within seven days, I will request administrative closure of these discussions as unfounded.
- Let’s put an end to this and keep Commons focused on genuine copyright issues.
- Thank you. Setzor (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete It would need to be free in the U.S., where freedom of panorama doesn't cover 2D art like murals. hinnk (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Reviewed COM:FOP and accept that the mural falls outside US FoP. Happy for the file to be deleted, thanks for feedback. Setzor (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete All parties agree on deletion after discussion & better understanding of FOP/Derivatives. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
May 28
[edit]
- File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hunter Kahn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Redundant to c:File:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.JPG. This was previously deleted on Commons based on c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari poster.jpg, which confused Austrian artist Fritz Bernhard with a Swiss artist of the same name. This same mistake was added to enwiki's copy a few years ago. We should replace this with the Commons version and delete the local copy again. hinnk (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Chatham Waterfront Aerial Hollaway Studio.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sunolafjagtenben-hur (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Existing place, no free equivalent online is not a valid fair use rationale as this can still be recreated. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- While it’s true that in theory an image like this could be recreated, the existing CGI was produced by the rights holder with specific architectural detail and emphasis that would be difficult to replicate freely without infringing on their copyright.
- Furthermore, the image is a precise, accurate representation of the redevelopment as designed and approved, making it a unique informational resource.
- No freely licensed alternative currently exists that provides this exact aerial perspective, level of detail, and authorized design depiction.
- Given these points, the image meets WP:NFCC criteria for non-free use as it is necessary for illustrating the article accurately and cannot reasonably be replaced with free content. Sunolafjagtenben-hur (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - the layout and features as designed can be expressed in text or freely made diagrams. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike what the nominator claimed, this is not an existing place, but a computer generated image of what it will look like eventually (as depicted in 2019). However, this is speculation. Unless that expansion is the subject of significant commentary, it fails our NFCC. It certainly should not be the lead image in the article. Buffs (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Carcross Desert Sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hersfold (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is an image of a sign with significant text. Although the image is under a free license, the text of the sign is not. De minimis does not apply as the main subject of the photo is the sign. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The sign has been in place for >50 years and
is, in effect,a government publication ofCanada and/orits provinces (edit: add. It was published by Yukon, see lower right corner). As such, it's PD; mark accordingly. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
May 29
[edit].png?lang=en){kind=link}
- File:Underscores Fishmonger (deadAir Legacy Edition).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wackistan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+May+29%23File%3AUnderscores+Fishmonger+%28deadAir+Legacy+Edition%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
Fails NFCC#8 due to being a secondary image, and is not the article's main image at the top of the page. Locust member (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- In what way is this different from the majority of deluxe covers used on wikipedia? Is it regarding the reasoning used in my upload? Wackistan (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Most deluxe covers on Wikipedia are not needed (or fail NFCC#8); I nominated this one because this is an article I have majorly contributed to.
- This rule also came to my attention recently when another editor nominated a deluxe edition cover for deletion from another one of the articles I have majorly edited (and it had been deleted). Locust member (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I assume it's due to the fact the deluxe cover largely resembles the original one? If so, I wouldn't mind it being removed. (edit: does "secondary" mean any alternate covers?) Wackistan (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Articles about albums and singles normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted. If more than one such image is desired (differing designs in different countries, a deluxe cover that is substantively different, etc), then the article needs to contain at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed album covers and must reflect significant, third-party commentary about each cover's appearance. This article fails that standard. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- File:Times of India Article - 2017.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hemant Janardan Joshi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Times of India Article - 2017.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hemant Janardan Joshi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-compliant with the fair use justification. It is a high-resolution image, not a low-resolution image, and it is not being used to illustrate any page (either for the Times of India or for the Times City section) but rather as a footnote for a page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete unneeded. A reference to that source is sufficient. It does not need a screenshot. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Today is May 29 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 29 – (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 "===May 29===" 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.