Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

File:Canada's Food Guide (2007-2018).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: relisted on 2019 February 10. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canada's Food Guide (2007-2018).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Link Super Smash Bros Ultimate.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Editors discussed (in 2009, and in 2014) about the appropriate image for the character. The result is File:Link (Hyrule Historia).png since Link has different incarnations. There are now two images showing an adult Link. File:Link Super Smash Bros Ultimate.png does not indicate how it meets WP:NFCC#3a for this situation nor why its appropriate for the character to not be in his iconic green tunic. In response to the latest discussion, I would like further input. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Link's Breath of the Wild incarnation isn't included in the collage image. Other characters with multiple incarnations, such as Zelda and Ganondorf, do not have a collage image for their article but rather an individual version. For the sake of consistency, Link should remain the same; keeping one in carnation as the hero image while showing the collage further down to indicate his different appearances solves that purpose while keeping the article visually cleaner and more consistent. Buh6173 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The character infoboxes's image should include artwork of the latest (or most recognizable) title in that character's origin series. Artwork from spin-offs and other appearances like this should be later in the article, if at all, not on the lead or infobox. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (As a note, the collage image would not fit this requirement either, as it is not the latest nor is it a singular version of the character) Buh6173 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it makes sense to use the newest incarnation of Link in Link (The Legend of Zelda). In the rest of the article, the BoTW Link image never appeared. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The composite image contains examples of his various incarnations and is better supported by the text and critical commentary in the article, so it has a better NFCC rationale (although the article itself is pretty weak in supporting detail). The arguments in this discussion are about consistency or "I like it more", which don't address WP:NFCC concerns. At this point, there's much more critical commentary on the kid with the green tunic than Breath of the Wild (in the article, and likely in body of coverage) making it more relevant than this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ The image's current rationale for meeting the eighth non-free content criterion is, "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work."
Firstly, "visual identification" is not an acceptable use per the non-free content guideline: "An image whose subject happens to be [Link], to illustrate an article on [Link]. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article." The article's discussion of the image is simply, "Link as he appears in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (with his Breath of the Wild design)". This is not sourced commentary on the image itself.
The rest of the rationale—"The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work."—is patently false as the article in its entirety discusses neither the specific image, nor the media from which it's derived. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:13, 30 January 2019 (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:Louisa Vesterager Jespersen.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. MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of copyright holder Ruyter - talk 20:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out my comment. File has been re-licensed to "Non-free fair use in" and has a fair use added. It is now used in the article Murders of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it a false claim, in the description it stated that " released by police. ". So I would say keep if the correct source is added to source. Christian75 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should rather use the more common image that shows both girls:[1] It would also be more appropriate than a bikini photo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a false claim from a another source. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (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:Edwin Keeble architectural sketch for National Guard Armory, 1939.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. MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket cannot be characterized as granting appropriate permission, but I'm nominating this one here instead of just tagging it for deletion because this might be public domain. B (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it qualifies as U.S. Public Domain (author's death (1979) plus 70 years); what about citing "fair use" since it is a low-res and non-commercial image used to illustrate the large-scale construction of National Guard Armories just before WW II? I am also able to provide a more convincing permission affidavit by the donor if that will help. Please advise if it's worth the effort. P.S., The family has already donated a photo of Keeble (File:Edwin A. Keeble, architect, ca. 1960.jpg) which has been deleted. Regards, —Eagledj (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I don't see a case for fair use since there are already a number of free images of buildings he designed in the article. The appearance of these armories is not discussed at all. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:47, 27 January 2019 (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:Hotel-Dunapartft.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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no source, dubious CC claim, unclear copyright status/may still be copyrighted FASTILY 01:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Azonosítatlan személyek" = anonymous, and the quotation says that the library has the right to use this image; the uploader's purpose in quoting it is obviously that this statement appeared at the source (yes, the image does have a source) with the image. Clearly the library's right to display this image didn't come from the creator (otherwise they'd know who the author was), so this is either the second or the third point of c:Template:PD-Hungary. (The library's statement is a claim that they can restrict use of digital images to nonprofits, a position we solidly reject.) The only remaining issue is whether this has been published (and that's only relevant for US purposes), but what I'm seeing indicates that this and other images from the same collection are part of a collection of printed-on-paper (and thus published, given the time period) photographs. This is reinforced by the metadata options in the source's dropdown at the Wayback Machine, which lets you specify the published source from which items are taken. If it were some person's personal photo from 1910 being first published in a book (and then they scanned the book and uploaded the scan), or if they scanned an unpublished photo from 1910, they'd know who the author was; only if it were published would they be able to ascertain the date without knowing who the author was. Consequently, I believe this to be a published-circa-1910 image and thus (1) PD-US, (2) PD-Hungary point 2, which would put this at PD in 1980, and (3) PD-1996 as well as PD-US. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The CC license is obviously nonsense and I have re-tagged the image based on Nyttend's rationale. Would like to hear other opinions before closing the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question ¶ The currently-applied license tag says, "This image was created in Hungary and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to Hungarian copyright law, images are protected until 70 years after the author's death." If the image was created circa 1910, as credited, then according to the tag, its copyright could lapse between approximately 1980–2024; why are we assuming that the anonymous author died over 70 years ago? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (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:F-4D Phantom II.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: relisted on 2019 February 10. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-4D Phantom II.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:SzBK new.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on commons 07:02, 19 January 2019. The file description had source=Embassy of Hungary London author=Tekla Szőcs Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no source or way to verify license. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 1 February 2019 (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.