Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

File:YingYe3Jia1OST.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Ying Ye 3 Jia 1#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION. If the soundtrack album is Wikipedia notable per WP:NALBUM and a stand-alone article about it can be created, this image would be fine to use in said article; otherwise, I don't see how this file can be kept based on the way its currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Chewy Pet Food Logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicense to PD. Whpq (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be PD-textlogo, not copyrighted/fair use The Quirky Kitty (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert license to {{PD-logo}}, replace non-free use rationale with {{Information}}, and then tag with {{Trademark}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} per c:COM:TOO United States. For future refrence The Quirky Kitty, if you come across something as obvious as this, you probably don't need to start a discussion about it here at FFD. You can either be WP:BOLD and change the license and other stuff yourself, or (2) you can ask about it at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! I thought changing a file's license was generally a no-no. I see now, it's permissible without a discussion in very simple cases. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone reverts the changes you made and you're unable to convince them the licensing should be changed, then that would probably be the time to start a discussion about it at FFD. Copyright licenses like anything else on Wikipedia are added by users and often it's just assumed that any type of company logo needs to be uploaded as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A vector version is available at File:Chewy pet food logo.svg on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NDS Philippine 200 Peso Banknote Obverse.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a self-made file, redundant to File:NDS obverse 200 Philippine peso bill.jpg CMD (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rodger Jacobs.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing exceptionally different from File:Rodger Jacobs 2010.jpg. One fair use file is sufficient. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFCC#3a. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:UptonAvenueMarket.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horrendous quality, replaceable with File:Upton_station_-_April_2019.jpg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value due to quality. Salavat (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RobertCHeartbreak.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file issue - Listing this for discussion to get clarity on the use of images from museum websites. This image was taken directly from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden's collection search, sized down and uploaded as fair use. As far as I know, even non-free images of art uploaded as fair use need to have author information, correct? As the museum never released information about who made this photograph, there is no author for us to attribute the reproduction to (even though technically there is no real legal "authorship" here for the reproduction as it's a mechanical reproduction of 2D copyrighted art). Should images like this be kept? 19h00s (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the lack of photographer would be an issue for the reason you mention, but I would argue that since there is no commentary at all on the image, it is very questionable whether it passes the non-free content criteria 3a and 8 with so many other samples of his style already in the article. Felix QW (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Health Education Journal front cover image.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very small and blurry for a PD cover. Replaced with higher-quality and more recent version at File:Health Education Journal cover.png on Commons, and no longer used. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Parisexpoizmir.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France has no freedom of panorama at all. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Paula17.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small size, lack of metadata and presence of watermark suggest this photo is not freely licensed. Currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.