Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

File:Flaten cecilia el reino de freyr.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either unused photo of personal artwork or incorrect PD tag. Not sure which. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't see how there could be a third explanation, and both of BU Rob's explanations are enough for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2017 (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:MKR Lilburne.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Not enough information to figure out what this is a picture of. No objection to keeping if someone can figure out what this even is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this appears to be the medal mentioned in John Lilburne#Return, trial and imprisonment. This is definitely the same person as the article's subject — compare its lead image, File:John Lilburne.jpg, to the person pictured in this file. PD-old by several hundred years, so the photographer's GFDL is sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2017 (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:Michael Burnham and Philippa Georgiou.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid NFUR: not discussed critically in the article, not used for educational purposes at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just about to remove it myself when I saw it'd already been opened here. We've had a long problem with image creep in ST episode articles, and this is no different. There would be plenty of room to argue other images from the episode if they were discussed in the article, but this is not one of those images. Miyagawa (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2017 (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:Dream boat 22.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a much better free image, so it is replaceable. It supposedly shows it at a historic event but it is too low resolution and poor quality to make out any distinctive features associated with that; it is just an image of the ship. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you could find a free image taken before her christening, then feel free to replace it. However, if all the images taken on that day are from the media, a free replable image may not exist. I can however, find a higher quality non-free image if you think the current one is too poor. Giggett (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; having an image of the ship at this point in her history isn't critical to the article. Why they'd wait on the christening until after the ship's already able to sail under her own power I can't imagine, but...because she's under her own power, this doesn't look particularly different from an aerial image of the ship in normal service. Even an image of the christening probably wouldn't be significant enough to warrant a nonfree image, but this scene definitely isn't significant enough. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing in the article to provide the context needed to meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2017 (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:G'sPB3.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 issue has been resolved. User has appropriately licensed the images. (non-admin closure) Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with a handful of other uploads - no license. @Giano: Please indicate a free license so this work can stay on the project. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When Giano saved the page User:Giano/Exploding palazzo he agreed to this:

"By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

Since the images were clearly his contribution (as stated on the file description page), they became licensed under exactly those terms: CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I'll add that license to the file description pages, and we can draw this charade to a close. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When Giano saved the page User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, he only contributed wikicode, and so the only contribution which was licensed under the specified licences was the submitted wikicode. An image is not wikicode and is therefore not covered by the licence granted by MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. An image is only automatically licensed if it says that you agree to do this in MediaWiki:Uploadtext at the point when the file was uploaded. At that point, the page did not state that files automatically were licensed, only that the uploader should provide information about the copyright status (see Special:PermanentLink/507336378). The file is unlicensed and remains unlicensed until the uploader chooses to license the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense and devoid of any policy. Giano's contribution was the content of that page which comprises just six images, and the content was licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Wikicode is not copyrightable, only the text or images used, so it is clear that the copyright licensed as "contribution" must have been that of Giano's images. If you don't believe me, ask Giano himself. I see that you've failed to notify him of this discussion, despite the requirement at Wikipedia:Files for discussion ("Give due notice) to notify the uploader. What is your reason for that failure? --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. The uploader is informed when a discussion is started. I didn't start this discussion. We do not inform the uploader whenever someone posts a follow-up comment to a discussion as that would put unnecessary amounts of spam on the uploader's talk page.

The only thing you contribute by clicking on "save changes" is wikicode, and it's only your contribution which is licensed. The file itself is not part of the contribution – only a reference to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. You cannot assume that a notification about a single file at FFD counts as a notification for three more files that you've tossed in later. That would make it really easy for you and your ilk to nominate a file that the uploader doesn't care about, and then throw in any number of other files without telling the uploader. Nice try, but you won't be getting away with that one.

Wikicode can't be copyrighted. Text and images certainly can. Anybody contributing via the visual editor will understand exactly what I'm telling you.--RexxS (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicode can be copyrighted. A typical article contains lots of wikicode, mostly in the form of normal text, and an article can be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicode can't be copyrighted. A typical article contains text and images, which is why it can be copyrighted. Wikicode is nothing more than a means of visualising what is stored in the MediaWiki backend database. The creative act of the author of an article is what makes it copyrightable. You might as well claim that letters and numbers are copyrightable, if you think the representation of an author's work counts, rather than the work itself. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding these files to the nomination:

They were all uploaded by Giano without a copyright tag. Later, a copyright was added by RexxS, but without evidence that Giano has consented to the added copyright tag. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 18#File:G'sPB expl2.jpg which lists a different file with the same problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has not been notified of these nominations. Why not? --RexxS (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The uploader was notified at User talk:Giano#File:G'sPB3.jpg listed for discussion when this section was created. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean exactly what I said. You have not notified Giano of your nomination of: File:G'sPB6.jpg; File:G'sPB7.jpg; File:G'sPB4.jpg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, contrary to your obligation to do so. If you claim otherwise, give the diff of your notification. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The uploader was notified in the section I linked to. There's no need to give the uploader a second notification about this discussion if the uploader already has been given a notification. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true and you know it. Where's the diff of your notification for File:G'sPB6.jpg; File:G'sPB7.jpg; File:G'sPB4.jpg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion? Give the diff or retract your mendacity. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the diff? --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's beyond enough. Notification of the uploader is not mandatory, but civility is, and if you continue, you're going to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2017 (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:Alsat1.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file is claimed under CC-BY-SA, but I see no such license at [1] (where it came from; site in French). On the other hand, I do see a Copyright @ Agence Spatiale Algérienne - ASAL - 2017 at the end of the main page, so it probably is not under a free license.

As for non-free use: the file is used in National Space Program (Algeria), but I am unsure about whether it meets WP:NFCC #8. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no solid evidence of permission, and as for the fair-use idea, File:AlSat.jpg means that this would be replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (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:Alsat1b.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_September_26#File:Alsat1.jpeg (same source, same uploader, and same issues). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:27, 26 September 2017 (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:Vickie Corner of V&S Entertainment Ltd.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. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Linkedin, although I can only find the website's thumbnail. Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2017 (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:AgsDSC02492.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone figure out what this is? If not, unused and unlikely to be useful. If so, and it's something noteworthy, we can transfer to Commons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the uploader tried to add it to Aguascalientes City with the caption "Torre Plaza Bosques" but put in the wrong filename. (This is the only upload I see for this user—an admin might want to check if it was actually a different image that has since been deleted.) The eagle on the pillar can be seen in other photos, and the cathedral looks about right at a first glance. I might add that the image is not of very good quality, but its having been taken from an unusual viewpoint (an apartment overlooking the plaza?) might give it some value.—Odysseus 1479 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Odysseus1479 has figured out what it is. GFDL plus "Juan Carlos González Romero", when uploaded by "Juan Carlos", is sufficient for legal reasons, and it would be considered in scope at Commons. This user had three other uploads: File:AgsDSC05669.JPG, deleted because it literally had no associated page (no license, no author, no description, no anything), File:AgsDSC02459.JPG, same situation, and File:Romero Forest Plaza Tower.JPG, deleted because it had been moved to Commons under the same filename. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not the same upload, then: the redlinked filename had serial 05667—which I guess referred to the descriptively named file, because the caption seems to translate to “Forest Plaza Tower”. So if this one is to be renamed it should probably be for the cathedral or the central plaza instead, or perhaps something like “Overview of central Aguascalientes City”.—Odysseus 1479 02:45, 28 September 2017 (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:Omphalotus olearius in NE IL.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author did not initially provide an appropriate release (later changed by another editor). They just said it was public domain, not that they release it into the public domain. We can't accept that release; it's a statement of fact that we have no evidence of being true. (This is similar to the difference between CC0 and the Public Domain Mark.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm not sure what {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} looked like in 2005, but it seems as if it was deleted in 2007 and at one point was redirecting to {{PD-author}}. In any case, the original version of the file description page establishes that the uploader took the photo, and that the copyright holder released it into public domain. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to change it to the proper tag. On the other hand, it's possible that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} was a completely acceptable tag for the uploader to use in 2005, and could have some slightly different wording than the template we currently see. Would you be able to check and confirm whether the template is identical in wording? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate how we update licensing templates. It's not acceptable to change the license under which an image is released arbitrarily like that. Bah. The original {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template in 2005 stated "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." This is insufficient licensing for the purposes of Wikipedia because it is not irrevocable, which is one of the requirements we have for free licenses. It probably was considered acceptable back then, though, when we had a less sophisticated understanding of copyright concerns. We definitely can't transfer this to Commons. I'd still prefer deletion, both because it's unused and because it doesn't fit our typical criteria for free licenses. Having said that, it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to retain it with an altered licensing tag under the premise that this license would have been viewed as acceptable at the time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess... it appears as if there is good coverage of the species on Commons. Losing this image because of the licensing issues definitely won't cripple the coverage of the subject. Better off to delete. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess... The file had {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. In 2006, Δ's bot changed the template to {{PD-release}} citing a discussion. In 2014, the template was changed again to {{No rights reserved}} because we had two templates with the same name and our {{PD-release}} caused confusion because there was a different template with the same name on Commons, but I'm not sure why Plastikspork's bot changed it to {{No rights reserved}} instead of {{PD-author}}. In 2016, I noted that the file used a redirect to {{PD-author}} and that it was own work by the uploader, so I changed the template to {{PD-self}}. However, it seems that {{No rights reserved}} wasn't a redirect to {{PD-author}} back when the file was uploaded, so it wouldn't have been correct to change the template into {{PD-self}} even if the uploader had used that template himself.

I see that the uploader's chosen licence, {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, currently redirects to {{Copyrighted free use}}, which currently doesn't have the 2005 text BU Rob13 quoted. We can't change the text of templates like {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{PD-self}}, {{No rights reserved}} unless we get the approval by the uploader. If someone wants to change something, such as fixing a typo, then it's necessary to create a different template instead because the person who makes the change isn't authorised by the copyright holder to make this change. This is why we need to have two different GFDL templates: {{GFDL}} and {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Commons even has several different disclaimer templates with different disclaimers, for example {{GFDL-en}} and {{GFDL-ja}}, because you're required to preserve the disclaimer in the original language. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

©	This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose.

Keep. When the image was uploaded and tagged with this template, here's what the template looked like. What more do you want than "I'm the copyright holder" and "I'm the source" (given in {{information}}), and "You can do whatever you want with it"? Moreover, with the exception of really old images that had a WP-only permission or a noncommercial license (all should have been deleted 10+ years ago), we don't delete images on copyright grounds if they were compliant with our standards when they were uploaded. C:Commons:Grandfathered old files is somewhat relevant; maybe it's just custom here to keep images that were fine when uploaded, but Commons specifically has this principle in a policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyttend: We require that licenses be irrevocable. Such a license is not, because they have not said they cannot revoke the license. That is what more we require. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2017 (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:Gregg Cash at the Roxy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarked, likely copyvio. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from Dustin Jack Photography, although searching the site for “Gregg Cash” turns up no results. I would say delete unless the uploader can explain the copyright notice or obtain consent through OTRS.—Odysseus 1479 05:58, 27 September 2017 (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:Mortificationrecordslogo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo for non-notable record label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 26 September 2017 (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.