Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

File:Solar Winds.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale is missing vital info. I would add it, but I'm not sure if the resolution is low enough for fair use anyway. I'm also not sure that the screenshot is good enough, as it's in a window and not fullscreen. Maybe it's best if this is deleted and a new one put in its place? Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2015 (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:AstroRockJPBoxArtSMS.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. Replaced with English cover per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Cover_art. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2015 (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:Aleksey Vakhonin 1964 2.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: keep. The files on Commons will likely be deleted, and free alternatives seemingly don't exist. This addresses the nominator's concern, and its use is justified. — ξ ^xplicit 04:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:NFCC#1 given the existence of free image Commons:File:Aleksey Vakhonin 1964.jpg. A speedy tag I placed on the file stating this was reverted stating that the stork stance is unique enough in this image to keep it included. However, this nominated image's purpose is to use it in the article's infobox, which means that its purpose is to identify the person, not necessarily to identify something they did (which would essentially be a completely separate encyclopedic subject/article.) However, it could be possible to move this image to Commons as a free file, considering that it may be eligible for the same tags currently on the free Commons equivalent; if that is so, it would resolve the WP:NFCC#1 concern. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular image is from Keystone (1964) and thus is copyrighted. If someone knows a potentially free version, please let me know. The event is unique - a weighlifter assumes a stork pose with lifted barbell while competing for Olympic gold. The article on Aleksey Vakhonin is short, and thus I use the photo to illustrate both the subject and event. Materialscientist (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't need a picture from a specific event. A picture from any other context could be used instead. Note that the file on Commons has been nominated for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aleksey Vakhonin. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The article doesn't need a picture from a specific event" - I do disagree. And this quote does not reflect the common practice with fair-use images on this wiki - we do include copyrighted pictures when they are direly needed to illustrate a unique event. Materialscientist (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only purpose of the image is to display what the person looks like. For that purpose, any picture can be used. We do not include pictures of unique events only by virtue of the event being unique as all events are unique. You would need to include sourced critical discussion about the picture itself. In other cases, using any other picture would be just as fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You would need to include sourced critical discussion about the picture itself" - included ages ago, read the article, can expand if you wish :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sourced critical discussion about the picture. The article mentions the event but contains little discussion about it and the sentence is easily understood without any image at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "We do not include pictures of unique events only by virtue of the event being unique as all events are unique" - nope, we do. Yes, it is impossible to reproduce all details of any given event, yet this is possible for major features of many events. This one is unique as no weightlifter would ever dare to show off by lifting a leg in the Olympic final, with a record weight above their head. I'm pretty sure no-one ever did that even in non-Olympic competitions. This feat is unique by its .. well .. stupidity, which is why its depiction is crucial for describing Vakhonin. Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"nope, we do" - Nope, we don't. There must be something which warrants a non-free picture before one can be included. For example, the fact that he was standing on one leg can easily be replaced by text, so that aspect of the picture violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the Commons file gets deleted, then my WP:NFCC#1 claim would no longer be valid, given that the subject of the photo is deceased. So, if it does get deleted, please assume that I have withdrawn this discussion, provided an alternate valid free alternative does not show up during this time. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the files that are on Commons which Stefan2 nominated for deletion do not get deleted, maybe there's a workable compromise available: what if the Commons file gets put into the infobox, and then the nominated non-free file gets moved to Aleksey Vakhonin#Biography, probably into the second paragraph since that is where the stork stance is mentioned? That option could resolve the need for contextual significance for this image. Steel1943 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The picture only needs one picture of the person, see WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (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:Imagine TV.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image with rationale, but we already have File:NDTV Imagine.svg for same. In fact the other one is better with company's name NDTV included in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 4 November 2015 (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:Charles-Randall-20th-Century-Calif-politician.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a duplicate for Commons:File:CharlesHiramRandall.jpg, with a slightly different coloration. Quite how the local image came to be under Fair Use when the Commons image clearly says its PD by age... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2015 (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:Bluealbum.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: keep and restore non-free license. — ξ ^xplicit 04:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am querying if PD-textlogo is apppropriate given that the the W and M are highly stylised. ( Nueman was a British musical performer, and the UK has a lower threshold of originality.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00, I originally uploaded this with a FUR, same as most album covers, and if I read the file history correctly, you changed it to PD-text. Rather than proposing for deletion now, why don't you just change it back to a FUR? This process seems unnecessary work for everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<Bright Red> If I changed it to PD-text. Withdrawn with apologies.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sfan00 IMG was not the editor who tagged the image as {{PD-logo}}; that was actually done by Alex Spade in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appeared that way from a quick scan of history. Regardless, I'd still say Keep and go back to FUR, if the current licence is an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2015 (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:BuckridgeLogo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is more complex than the current licensing tag would indicate, namely the drawing elements top right. Unsourced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just delete it. Craiger19 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2015 (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:CYMERA 20150812 001656.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unsourced, bad license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2015 (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:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is used in the infobox of 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 WP:NFC#UUI. From this webpage it looks like the logo was used for at least two different years. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page claims that the logo only was used in 2006, although similar logos were used during other years. As 2006 seems to be the first year with this logo type, it might be acceptable to use the logo in 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. That said, I have no idea if www.sportslogos.net is a reliable source or not.

I note that there also is a fair use rationale for the article Cotton Bowl Classic, but that article uses a different logo, so I will remove the fair use rationale for that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2015 (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:IACT stereoscopic scheme.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not just text, unsourced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2015 (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:Socceraustralia.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image has non-free use rationale for Football Federation Australia#History, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion so the image should be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's not critically discussed in the article. It's purely decorative and we can get rid of it with little loss. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 22:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant extra logo, see WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2015 (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:Almost 2 million RPM in Huggle!.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no likelihood of future utility. LukeSurl^{t c} 17:22, 4 November 2015 (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:RH7.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unidentified people. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2015 (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:Title image.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable people: The original london gentlemen was speedied. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (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:Meinkampf.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "siehe Deutsch". de:Datei:Meinkampf.jpg, the page with the same title on German Wikipedia, was deleted by Ra'ike (talk · contribs) stating that the file was "enzyklopädisch absolut irrelevant". I don't know whether the dewiki file is the same or not or whether dewiki has source information, but I agree that the file is unencyclopædic. Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2015 (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:Timeline.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused unidentified timeline. What is "FCP"? No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FCP is Final Cut Pro. The file was possibly intended for inclusion in that article. It seems to have managed without it since 2008, though. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the original uploader (wow that was a long time ago), I recommend deleting this image as it's quite outdated and, as mentioned above, isn't being used in the article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:28, 5 November 2015 (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:MalachiteRoom.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. The file is not being used currently and an identical copy is located on Commons. The Keep Local tag does not trump the WP:NOTWEBHOST policy. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality. c:File:MalachiteRoom.jpg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the one on en-wp is better. It is also well-known that Giano does not trust Commons because they delete files without notifying the original uploader. We should defer to his stated preference and keep a local copy. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not delete files without notifying the original uploader. As long as you make sure that you are the original uploader on Commons or the first uploader of a modification of the picture, you should receive a notification whenever the file is nominated for deletion. If Giano hasn't received a notification for files uploaded to Commons, then this would seem to imply that Giano wasn't the original uploader on Commons. If you want to ensure that you get a notification when a file is nominated for deletion on Commons, you should ensure that you are uploading the file directly to Commons. By uploading a file to Wikipedia instead of Commons, you are increasing the chances that you won't get a notification when the file is nominated for deletion on Commons as the original uploader on Commons will be someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is blatantly untrue, Stefan2 and I'm going to ask you to strike that lie. I created and uploaded a file called File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg years ago. It was deleted from Commons a few weeks ago with no notification to me: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg - here's the history of my commons talk page - and the first I knew about it was when a bot removed it from my en-wp user page. I was not just the uploader, but the creator, and that's the way we get treated on Commons. Very often files that Giano creates and wants to keep on his en-wp watchlist get copied over to Commons by someone else, then the en-wp version gets deleted, then the Commons version gets deleted on spurious grounds with no notification to Giano. You already have several examples of that happening, as you're the principal culprit in marking files here for copying to Commons. It is intolerable that you should suggest editors should upload only to Commons, because if they don't it increases the chances of not being notified of their impending deletion. That is blackmail and bureaucracy gone mad. --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were not notified about the deletion discussion for c:File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg simply because you were not the original uploader on Commons. The file was uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), presumably on behalf of User:Kelly as that user got a notification when the file was nominated for deletion. You would have got a notification if you had been the original uploader, but you chose to upload the file to Wikipedia instead so that someone else would be the original uploader on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS - if you had the local version of File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg on your watchlist, you would have been notified when the local version was transferred to Commons, and could easily have placed it on your Commons watchlist. Also, you seem never to have taken any action to request undeletion of the file, I've done so here. When mistakes get made, they really are more easy to try to rectify than to complain about. Kelly ^hi! 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to upload the file to en-wp because I check my en-wp watchlist daily and my commons watchlist rarely - just like most editors that I know. That's why we have email notifications available for sister projects that we don't visit so often. Also I created the file to be humorous and intended solely for my user page, so saw no need for placing it on commons. When you copied it onto commons, I was a new user and believed the propaganda about putting files on commons, so didn't object - just like many other editors here. The result of believing the codswallop you feed us about commons is that a file that I created and uploaded to en-wp was transferred elsewhere where it is less convenient to watch and subsequently deleted without any notification to me. So commons does delete files without notifying the original uploader, because no matter how you wikilawyer it, I was the creator and original uploader and your zeal to have everything on commons left me disenfranchised in the deletion discussion. No wonder folks like Giano resist you transferring his files to commons, and quite rightly too. Until you get procedures in place to attribute the original creator/uploader of files on commons, instead of hijackers like you, that will remain my firm position. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you have the right to feel the way you do, but the project as a whole long ago came to the consensus that Commons is the project's preferred repository for free media. It's unfair to expect other editors to go out of their way to find and notify you just because you can't be bothered to check a watchlist once in a while. Kelly ^hi! 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like Commons to be the repository for all files so that they could be used easily in other projects. BUT, you use a system where you fail to preserve information (uploader/creator) when you transfer files from the local repository to a central one. Our licensing relies on attribution to a great extent, and you fail to observe that basic courtesy. That reason alone should be sufficient for me to reserve the right to keep files I create/upload local. It's nothing to do with me not being bothered to log in to Commons daily, and everything to do with you not being bothered to attribute properly the work of editors who have bothered to create it. Get the plank out of your own eye, before you start whining about the mote in mine. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. Commons:File:Malachite Room by Konstantin Ukhtomsky.jpg, for instance, contains all the information required for the attribution chain. And with WP:SUL, you can get to your Commons watchlist with one click. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to upload files directly to Commons. In that case, you can ignore your Commons watchlist and only take a look at your talk page when someone posts a nomination to the talk page. However, you chose to disable that notification by uploading the picture elsewhere. You are free to disable whatever notifications you wish, but when you do, you should not complain about not receiving those notifications which you have chosen to disable. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with RexxS, the copy here seems looks better. Andrew D. (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are sufficiently different that I wouldn't say one is better than the other.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original low-quality version seems to have been overwritten by a higher quality version to the extent that Wikipedia's version now is better than the version on Commons. The uploader has also added a "keep local" template which was not present when the file was nominated for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody could have done the same. You fail continually to observe the spirit of WP:BEFORE - Don't nominate it for deletion if you can improve it to remove the concern. Have you ever tried to improve a file first? Sometimes it's really simple. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest improvement seemed to be to simply delete the file as a much better version of the picture already was available on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken again. The file on en-wp is better than the picture presently available on Commons: the colour balance is more neutral and the resolution is higher on the en-wp version. You really need to do a least a basic bit of research before going on your deletion rampages. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've transwiki'd this version of the image to Commons as File:Malachite Room by Konstantin Ukhtomsky.jpg, cleaned up and improved the file description page, and replaced its usage in the articles in which it was used. This particular copy is now unused and can be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and to resolve the conflict with Commons. I encourage anyone interested in monitoring the file to place it on their Commons watchlist, which I remind you is only one click away. Kelly ^hi! 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kelly, above. Reh man 12:54, 24 November 2015 (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:Number 3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused files, two of them overwritten. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2015 (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:688 Club logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Miniapolis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image seems simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" and not as "non-free". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (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:Triroctowers.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vauge license, Commercial reuse not stated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2015 (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.