Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

Gladys Aller files

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 all except paintings. The newspaper publications were PD-US-not renewed. Copyright is inherited, and uploader indicated that heirs wished to release copyright on first image. The rest are paintings and the uploader indicated that there is no intent to release copyright. Consensus is that they fail WP:NFC. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free files being used in Gladys Aller. A number of these files may actually be old enough to be converted to pubic domain using {{PD-US-no notice}} or another similar template since they appear to have been first published in 1937. Others such as the the various works of arts probably do not satisfy WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as well as possibly WP:NFCC#1. ~~Change them to public domain, if they're old enough.~~

"File:Gladys Aller Painter.jpeg" is listed as personal photo taken by Allers' husband. If it was and he is still living, then it would seem to fail NFCC#1 because he could upload the file to Wikimedia Commons under a free license, right? If her husband is dead, but the copyright was transferred to his estate, then it seems that they could freely license the image. No source is provided for the photo other than "private collection", but if one was then perhaps this could be considered acceptable as non-free per No. 10 of WP:NFCI. Suggest keep for use in main infobox per No. 10 of NFCI if the NFCC#1 concerns can be resolved and better copyright information per WP:NFCC#10a can be provided. ~~Answer -The photo is in the collection of her daughter. The photographer is dead. The photo was taken in the 40's. I added "keep" BlueWind13 (talk)~~
Files "Frolicsome Artists Hollywood 1937.jpg", "Surrealist Costumes .jpg", "Gladys Aller and Fletcher Martin.jpg" and "Surrealist Valentine's Ball 1937.jpeg" all seem to be scans from newspapers. These may be old enough for some sort of conversion to public domain, though a copyright notice can be seen at the bottom of "Gladys Aller and Fletcher Martin.jpg". However, I don't see a way to justify the non-free use photos per NFCC#8 or NFCC#3a since there use appears more decorative than contextual. The photos are being used in an image gallery which is generally not recommended per WP:NFG and the specific photos are not themselves the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so their contextual significance is not clear. There is a short paragraph mentioning "Surrealist Ball" in the article, but it's unsourced and, in my opinion, a non-free image (let alone four non-free images) is not really needed for the reader to understand what is written. Suggest remove for all images if they cannot be converted to a free license. Answer: The gallery illustrates the art scene in Los Angeles in the 30's which is mentioned in the text. Convert them to a free license - they're all unavailable online otherwise. And were taken in February 1937, most on published on February 16th. BlueWind13 (talk)
Files "Gladys Aller Lady With Hat.jpg", "Santa Monica Pier Watercolor Gladys Aller.jpeg", "Two Women of Tonopah Gladys Aller.jpeg" and "Cannas by Gladys Aller.jpeg" are all paintings by Aller whose sources are listed as being in someone's private connection. As with the newspaper photos, there's really no reason for four non-free examples of Allers' work to used per NFCC#3a. In addition, none of the paintings is itself the subject of any sourced discussion within the article so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Perhaps one of them could be used as an example of Allers' work if it can be shown to have the subject of discussion by reliable sources, but otherwise this type of decorative use is not really allowed per NFCC#8. Suggest remove all unless the NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a concerns can be resolved, or the files can be converted to a free license. Answer - The paintings illustrate the different schools of painting that the artist's work explored through the different decades - as mentioned in the text. They should not be removed. BlueWind13 (talk)

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change them to public domain, if they're old enough.

Answer 1- The photo is in the collection of her daughter. The photographer is dead. The photo was taken in the 40's. I added "keep"

Answer 2: The gallery illustrates the art scene in Los Angeles in the 30's which is mentioned in the text. Convert them to a free license - they're all unavailable online otherwise. And were taken in February 1937, most on published on February 16th.

Answer 3 - The paintings illustrate the different schools of painting that the artist's work explored through the different decades - as mentioned in the text. They should not be removed. BlueWind13 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC+9)

[Note: The above comments by BlueWind13 were accidentally inserted into my original post which made the thread difficult to read. So, i struck out the comments from my original post and moved them to beneath mine per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors to make the discussion easier to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Since no online source is given for the photo of Alleys from her private collection, I assuming it has never been published. How did you obtain it? If you're in contact with Alleys' daughter, then perhaps she would agree to freely license the photo as explained in WP:DCM#Donating your photographs or c:COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary. A freely licensed photo is much easier to use on Wikipedia because it is not subject to WP:NFCC. Moreover, the fact the Alleys' daughter can create a freely licensed version of the photo to serve the same encyclopedic purpose might make non-free use unacceptable per NFCC#1.

As I mentioned above, the "Gladys Aller and Fletcher Martin.jpg" has a copyright notice attached to it, so I think that means {{PD-US-no-notice}} cannot be used for that particular photo, but perhaps there's another way to convert it to PD. If the photos were published/taken in 1937 and they weren't published anywhere else since that time, then they might be old enough for PD. Otherwise, their non-free use does not seem justified.

Again if Alleys' daughter now holds the copyright of these works of art or they are old enough, then perhaps they can be converted to a free license or PD. However, as Cullen328 explained to you at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#orphan image for future use simply wanting to show examples of Alleys' work at various points in her career is not really enough to justify non-free use, particularly in articles not specifically about the paintings themselves. Proper context needs to be added as article content which would make removing the file detrimental to the reader's understanding. Generally, this is considered to be content reflecting what reliable sources specifically say about the painting itself, and such content would need to be added for each file. Right now, there is no such content in the article so seeing the paintings is not really necessary for the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand all these points, I'm afraid. There is no desire from the heirs of Gladys Aller to make reproduction of her works copyright free or in the public domain. Why cannot they just be used to illustrate text for an historical person? As for the clippings from the newspaper - one of the papers, at least, no longer exists, and it is unknown if they were ever subsequently reproduced, although at least one of the artists in the photos - Fletcher Martin is a well known figure. There are no online sources to reference for these photos. That is a problem when an artist died before the internet was invented. The only specific image available online is through the Metropolitan Museum of Art and it is specifically stated that it cannot be reproduced (and wasn't on the page - only linked.) But what good is an article about an historical figure - a visual artist, if the reader cannot see examples of her work?

I can add more specific text to the article referencing the actual paintings as representative of her style at a particular period, if that would help. BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding usage of the photo of the artist File: Gladys Aller Painter - the heirs have given permission for its free use and reproduction. They would like a photo of their mother to be available online and for editorial use. BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWind13, this is what would be best for each file that the heirs have given permission for free use:

Move the file(s) into Commons: with the appropriate license:
- The Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0 license (see the Common's commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0 Cc-by-sa-4.0 template).
- The Creative Commons — CC0 1.0 Universal license that is essentially the same as Public domain (see the Common's Cc-zero template).
The heirs need to follow the Commons' Open-source Ticket Request System process by sending an email to permissions @ commonswikimedia here, or, alternatively, upload the files themselves

Peaceray (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, what the heirs may or may not want is secondary to what the copyright holder, living or dead, has a right to— and copyright extends beyond death for some time. Sadly, this is what sometimes happens to images where the copyright holder died before being able to release an image under a suitable license: without any statement of permission or copyright transfer, we must assume the copyright holder intended to retain the full copyright and delete the image from Wikipedia and Commons. It longer matters what he or she might have wished— all that matters is what we can give evidence of, and without evidence, we err on the side of caution, which means we cannot host the file(s). KDS4444 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2016 (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:Chasingshadows.jpeg

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 as PD-simple Majora (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free as it's mostly a text logo against a largely single colour background. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, this one without question is PD-simple. The local larger version should be undeleted and then moved to Commons I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 17 August 2016 (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:Cinven logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is under non-free terms as it's a text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by mistake. The Commons file of the same type is almost certainly incorrectly licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 17 August 2016 (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:Classic Hits 4FM 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 as PD-ineligible-USonly - the license of the Commons file is questionable (too many of these logo cross-wiki-uploads tend to turn out to be copyvio) and we don't know about Irish TOO Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free as it's a simple text logo with one gemoetric element (right). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2016 (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:Cobanzade.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this image is 'non-free' as the equivalent at Commons Commons:File:Photo of Bekir Chobanzade in poetry collection "Boran".jpg was under a free license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (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:Raojagirdar,aug 2016.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third party logo design, which would need a seperate license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe could be used as fair use, but I have to wonder what the topic of the article is, exactly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 17 August 2016 (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:Mey Chan.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Fan-art? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (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:Bitter Harvest One Sheet.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a movie poster, so I am not seeing why it's self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (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:Spade House.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal, as according to a note on the file page, it's misidentified. Move to commons with a rename? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Therefore just a house in Sandgate. No reason to keep. Orphan image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RonHJones. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2016 (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:Combined plaques background vert erased opt.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 9 August 2016 (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:James Harrington Blue Plaque.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current version obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Older version is on Commons as File:James Harrington Blue Plaque 1.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 9 August 2016 (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:Doddridge Chapel Memorial.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 as is Majora (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this memorial should be covered by {{FoP-UK}}, as it is located in premises open to the public. Pinging Stefan2. Kelly ^hi! 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, this appears to be sculptural. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the artwork is most likely not under copyright - Philip_Doddridge#Doddridge_United_Reformed_Church implies that the church in question is too old for any art that is part of it to be under copyright - see also this link. The photo itself falls under PD-self. I am currently reading the UK copyright law and I don't understand why the filepage is claiming that the artwork could be still under copyright or for that matter, why it's called "unpublished" - the definition of "published" I can see includes "exhibition to the public", which this one clearly is. I'd just add {{photo of art|{{PD-self|date=June 2010}}||{{PD-old-100}}|pdsource=yes}} as the license and call it a day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to someone in the -commons IRC channel about this and since the UK is a common law country it may very well fall under "unpublished". Publishing does not equate to being in public. See c:COM:PUB. For that reason, I'm going to close this as a "keep as is" under a precautionary standpoint. --Majora (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (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:Mtr-logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided; probably copyvio / unused Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Video game logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG: I think so (see March to Rome (disambiguation)). Doesn't have an article; the link is a redirect. (I've nominated the disambig page for deletion as well, since it doesn't seem to serve any purpose.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 9 August 2016 (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:CarnegieMellonMobot.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: Unactionable. Image is grandfathered. Majora (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User was advised to update the details at least 3 years ago and nothing happened in respect of this image. Credits a photgrapher, but it's not clear if it's the uploader. {{uw-imgclaim1}} left on talk page but given the inactivity, FFD refferal. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG They now have an account at User:NeuronExMachina, may want to ask there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is grandfathered. Unless you can prove that it doesn't meet another guidelines besides licensing it won't be deleted. If they don't want to claim their work they do not have to either. Closing as unactionable. --Majora (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (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:Nathan Hamblen.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, User profile photo ( as given name doesn't seem to be an article subject)? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2016 (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:Digitalcamera.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 JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(In the absence of a forum for technical concerns), This image is unused, and whilst hi-res appears to be ever so slightly blurred/out of focus in my view. FFD for a second opinion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether a repair is worthwhile - the file is orphaned and File:Hp photosmart 735.JPG for example exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that it is not clear and therefore unlikely to be used in the future. ★ Bigr Tex 19:05, 17 August 2016 (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:BGEE-Game Screenshot.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 as non-free thus Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Games screenshots, cannot be own work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it can not be my own work, especially as I created the screenshot myself from a playthrough I was doing of the game; I was using the Upload Wizard to do this. I had to edit it in MS Paint to not include my desktop, or the upper portion where one can find the program's name and the options for minimising, maximising and closing down the program (it's hard to see, but if you look at the bottom of the image you can just make out the top of my desktop's taskbar). However, if the general consensus is that it should be non-free use, notify me to include a Non-free use rationale video game screenshot template on the image (it was created with the aim of highlighting an update to the game described in the article Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition. GUtt01 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create the artwork for the game? 20:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No. If it has to be done, I will amend it to Non-free use, but only if consensus leans towards it. (P.S. Sign your posts in future, when making discussions.)GUtt01 (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game is a non-free work. An image of a a non-free work is still non-free. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will amend this ASAP with a Non-Free template. GUtt01 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And noted about the aignatures, I am somewhat infamous on wiki and do forget. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matter should be resolved now - have amended image to Non-Free Use. GUtt01 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved-Converted to 'non-free' use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (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:US-IL-Chicago-CA58.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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Upload log check suggests this was part of set many of which have now been deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2016 (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:Volgsjo Vilhelmina Sweden.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 change in author information makes it unclear whether the license applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader seemingly changed the attribution for this image, So who actually took the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (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:Bartshogarth-800.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: Relicensing to Photo of art with the current license as photographer side and PD-old-100 as the art license, to recognize the copyright status of the painting Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good faith, given that this is a PD painting, and in use. The question here is whether this needs a different license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (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:NorthPoleApril14.mov

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: Wrong venue Majora (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This uses a non-free file format, but seems to be linked from a reference desk disscussion. Any takers for converting this to something that can be put on Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, WP:NFC and WP:NFCC do not apply to the file format~, only to the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know why this FFD was opened. If you want to convert it to a format that is acceptable on Commons please do so. Since you aren't asking for it to be deleted and you aren't questioning its licensing status I'm going to close this. --Majora (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2016 (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:Court of sadiq zand.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 as PD-art Majora (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying whhy this is considered non-free, when the art which is the subject of the image looks to be very old. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG Probably because the identical Commons file is incorrectly licensed; it should be either {{PD-Art|{{PD-old-70}}}} or {{Licensed-PD|{{PD-old-70}}|{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}}} considering that the artwork, as indicated by the source, is from the "early 18th century". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 17 August 2016 (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:Cover of Gods New Covenant, A New Testament Translation.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free as it seems to be a text cover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit concerned that these silvery stripes may be artistic... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: A better quality image of the book can be viewed at abebooks, though I'm not sure if that helps at all.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (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:Crufts.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: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is tagged as non-free locally, but simple at Commons, Is the Edge decision being applied locally (given the Cr design to the left of the logo). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear cut case of PD-ineligible-USonly. We'd need more information to know whether it is copyrighted in the UK - namely, a larger sample of precedents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watch c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crufts logo.svg --XXN, 11:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watched. Will nominate as F8 if it is kept there. Closing. --Majora (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2016 (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:Cyark logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this logo is non-free as it's one geometric element and text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2016 (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:Db Kegham Parseghian.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free, given that the equivalent file at Commons is under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we don't have evidence of publication before 1923 - the 1915 date seems to refer to the creation date and the source website doesn't go into details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (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:Deadspin logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free as it's a text logo (albiet a slightly stylised font). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (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:Deportes Iberia badge.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: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free, as it's mostly text or simple geometric shapes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible in light of File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg, but given the lack of evidence that it would be free in Chile I'd recommend to start with PD-ineligible-USonly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 17 August 2016 (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:Deutscher Handballbund logo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this image is non-free, when it may lie below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2016 (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:Diebold logo (no tag line).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 as F8 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this logo is non-free, as it Text plus one geometric element. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2016 (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:DiemaFamily.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 as non-free. Deleted on Commons. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free, as it's a mostly text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that that letter on the right with the colour gradients around it would qualify as simple. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the outcome of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiemaFamily.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:30, 17 December 2016 (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:World Culture Zones in jpg.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Was removed from Cultural area because accuracy is disputed; appears to be original research and thus unlikely to be useful. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2016 (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:Dom Lavoslava Schwartza.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queying why this image is non-free when the Commons Equivalent is considered to be under an expired Croat/Yugoslav copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2016 (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:Dureco 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: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the Netherlands and the identical Commons file is questionably licensed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this logo is non-free, given it's mostly text or simple geometric elements. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2016 (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:EDreamsODIGEO white RGB.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: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the countries of origin Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is non-free, given that it's a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2016 (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:Winterfresh5.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying as this appears to be packaging arwtork, no contest that it's likely to be the uploaders photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such things often fall under de minimis but this image is a bit too focused on the artwork and very blurry to boot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 17 August 2016 (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.