Wikipedia:Files for discussion
![]() | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
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:
- File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parsecboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This is a German image from 1905, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What basis do you have to believe this image was published anonymously? The first page in the source seems to imply that Weyer produced them, and it clearly states that he retained all rights. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- First, you did not mark the correct author of the file when uploading it, but thought that the file was uncertain. In addition, since the image was published in Germany, German copyright law stipulates that works enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense; I said the page implies that Weyer drew the sketches, but it's not clear.
- Yes, indeed; when did Weyer die? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- So is the issue just one of which template to use? So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer drew the sketch (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany). Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (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.
August 19
[edit]- File:Zhou Jiangyong pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:FAIRUSE for living person image. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale directly addresses why this image of a living person would not be replaceable, and the nomination hasn't really addressed it at all. hinnk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations
[edit]August 20
[edit]- File:DCUnitedOld.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuzzy510 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Former logos do not signicantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Also violates WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items, as the current logo suffices. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:D.C. United logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CouvGeek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Former logos do not signicantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Also violates WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items, as the current logo suffices. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's only a valid image for English Wikipedia if it meets all of the NFCC. Which it doesn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Steve Boros and His Apple II.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cbl62 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file should be considered for deletion now that a free image, File:Steve Boros Oakland.jpg, is available to identify Steve Boros. I understand this image is specific to his use of the Apple II and I'll ask the masses whether that's sufficient to retain it. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Steve Boros was the first manager in Major League Baseball (perhaps all of sports?) to use a computer to guide his staffing and game decisions. Computers are now an essential element of baseball (and sports) analysis. Boros' early use of computers is uniquely important, and this historic image depicts Boros with the early Apple computer that he used. The image provides an enriching historical element to the section of his biography on the use of computers. See Steve Boros#Computer pioneer. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NFCC#1 since a free image exists. An image of him with the computer also doesn't significantly enhance the article despite the sourced commentary about this phase of his life, so fails WP:NFCC#8 too in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. There's nothing visually distinctive about this computer, so this doesn't really add much that wouldn't be understood from the text alone. hinnk (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
August 21
[edit]- File:SpySheriffPopUp.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thisismyrofl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
We typically don't need to use non-free images to illustrate general concepts. I suggest removal from scareware. There are some examples from [1] that are below the threshold of originality. Furthermore, the SpySheriff article already has a different non-free image, so there is no need to keep this one on that article either. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Bodwin-family.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bbodwin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The file is redundant and unfeatured in any article. Please notify if you are working on an article using this file. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2024 (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.
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1969.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1971.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1989.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:Swindon town fc badge 1990.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Foxhill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Contrary to the claim that says that the logos are "discussed in articles as listed on this page", these former crests are not subject to sourced critical commentary in History of Swindon Town F.C., where they are used. In order to satisfy the contextual significance criterion, an additional non-free item must either "itself [be] the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article", as "only a single item of non-free content meets" WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, "The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." None of these requirements occur in the aforementioned article. ✗plicit 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are discussed in Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest as stated on the image pages. If you feel they shouldn't be in the History article, feel free to remove them from it. Nanonic (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all fail WP:NFCC#8 as do not significantly enhance the articles (even with the paragraphs of partially sourced text about club logo history on Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest), and WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items in an article (current logo suffices on Swindon_Town_F.C., and no logo is fine on History of Swindon Town F.C.). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are just including old logos with zero commentary about them, those flay out fail NFCC#8. Our non free policy is stricter than fair use that other websites go by as to minimize the decorative use of nonfree — Masem (t) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I said - improve the articles. That is not a valid reason to delete. GiantSnowman 18:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are just including old logos with zero commentary about them, those flay out fail NFCC#8. Our non free policy is stricter than fair use that other websites go by as to minimize the decorative use of nonfree — Masem (t) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Deadlock-screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SilviaASH (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#4. The screenshot was taken from leaked closed-beta copy of yet-unannounced video game, and thus is not yet published by the copyright holder, Valve, to the public, nor publicly-released screenshot taken by Valve themselves are available. In a screenshot in the linked source, Valve made it clear not to leak it to the public. Therefore it cannot be considered as fair use. Stylez995 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The screenshot was published by The Verge, which is considered a reliable source of information. Although Valve did not expressly permit the publication of the screenshot, they did become aware of its publication after the fact, as evidenced by their banning of the article's author from playing the game [2]. If they wanted it gone, they could have filed a copyright claim to get it taken down, but they did not do so, and I think this can be taken as indication that they do not intend to prevent its spread. They have also so far not sought to exercise any legal force or mandate any enforceable agreements to prevent people from leaking the game, and there is no indication that they will do so, in spite of the extremely public nature of the leaks.
Considering the unusual circumstances at play here, I believe that informing readers about what is publicly known about the game in reliable sources takes precedence over pleasing Valve, and that WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:IAR apply in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Screenshot from video games and other medias do not have to be those released by the copyright owner, since the use of these fall under fair use principles of US law, as long as all other factors of non free are met. As for an unreleased to the public product, User-made screenshot are of questionable dubiousness, but those taken from reliable sources used to illustrate their own articles on the topic are 100% fair game for use, since we are using the source reliability to say the screenshot is a fair representation of the game. Masem (t) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Valve's secrecy agreement was a "gentleman's agreement" and AFAIK not even legally binding, so there's no case here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems Valve just lifted the NDA. I think the image isn't worth deleting now. NessBLX (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The image is legally no different from any video game screenshot on WP. The Verge's ethics of including a screenshot and reporting on Valve's confidential game is outside a deletion discussion. I think whether including the screenshot on the Deadlock article has encyclopedic use should to be discussed on the talk page. IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Images of Valencia City.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renzoy16 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Sources of the component images of this collage/montage not specified. Specifying the sources of the component images is important to ensure that this file as a derivative work of the component images does not contain unfree images not under acceptable CC licensing; see also c:COM:Collages. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Metro-epektaseis.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfera1022 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nom's comment – Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
August 22
[edit]- File:Qarabag,logo,2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ulvi Rustam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Doesn't seem to increase reader's knowledge and can be redirected to Qarabağ FK instead. Fails NFCC8 --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2004.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Best RSAF Unit award 2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave1185 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, a group photo doesn't effectively increase the reader's understanding of the article. Plaintext noting that the squadron attained the "Best Fighter Squadron" award is sufficient. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Campli, Italia (smaller).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Krzellitti (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Really scaled version of original File:Campli, Italia.jpg Lewis Cawte (Talk) 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:CapeRomanoPyramid.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SavagePanda845 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't think this non-free image qualifies for fair use as the parent article Cape Romano doesn't seem to contain any commentary about this specific structure. If we want to illustrate human presence, then File:Slipping into the Sea (25278613801).jpg could be used instead. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image does not convey anything essential about Cape Romano. I agree that the non-free image does not qualify for fair use in the article. Donald Albury 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I added the image, it originally accompanied a bit of info I wrote about the pyramid house, however, some of the sources I used weren’t reliable and it got reverted; I haven’t gotten around to readding it with better sources. If I did, would the image be able to stay? SavagePanda845 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
August 23
[edit]- File:Poster ponyo us.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renamed user 5e19be348138482c04e5d6b35a97e27bf0d2298b546d5197d65d3d71c49cbf15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This poster is redundant to the Japanese poster currently in the infobox of the Ponyo article. Use of more than one non-free file serving the same purpose violates criterion 3a of the non-free content policy. Delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anetode (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This probably meets the UK threshold of originality, but the design seems simple enough that it could be used as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. hinnk (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
August 24
[edit]- File:Jason Derulo Bubblegum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deeeogo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The image is listed as coming from Warner Bro. However, the song was never released independently from the album therefore there is no reason for a single cover to be produced. A reverse image search finds no credible/plausible source for the song cover. Fails WP:V >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
August 25
[edit]- File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Species is not extinct, and could be observed in the future. This makes the image replaceable and an NFI violation. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:FriendRichardson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OCNative (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails NFCCP#1, as the article itself has a free image, as well as Commons hosting 7 other free images. reppoptalk 22:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not a good image of the Philippine Arena, obscured by trees. Poor representation of the arena. The only instance of use, at Bulacan article, will be replaced by File:Philippine Arena - Front View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg shortly after this nomination. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The suggested replacement is fine, but not a whole image of the stadium. I understand that English Wikipedia is not a file repository, but given that the original is deleted from Commons, having a limited selection of images of {{FoP-USonly}} buildings provides a source for future editorial choice. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
- File:Ph-bulacan-bocaue-philippine arena front.jpeg
- File:Philippine Arena - side view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front (Bocaue, Bulacan; 05-05-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front view (Bocaue, Bulacan)(2019-05-05).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - front, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - night view, SEAG opening (Bocaue, Bulacan; 11-30-2019).jpg
- File:Philippine Arena - Distant View (Ciudad De Victoria, Bocaue, Bulacan)(2014-10-19).jpg (this is closer to the file I nominated)
- With seven images of this stadium, plus the image I suggested, it is already more than enough to illustrate enwiki. Enwiki is not an indefinite file hosting service, notwithstanding the local exemption doctrine (WP:FOP is inferior to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE). I think these images are enough and there is no need for more images of this stadium (unless the stadium's appearance is altered sometime in the future). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle we already have too many images of this stadium, mainly from Patrickroque01. I'll mention the following files from him:
August 26
[edit]Footer
[edit]Today is August 26 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 26 – (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 "===August 26===" 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.