Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.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: relisted on 2020 April 22. FASTILY 03:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png (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:Saturn VUE letter.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 ⚡ 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

screenshot of email from someone else; missing evidence of permission FASTILY 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2020 (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:Wilf Bartrop, footballer.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

historical photo of notable individual, dubious CC license claim FASTILY 08:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo, Wilfred Bartrop, died in 1918 so this image might conceivably be public domain, but there is no information about its authorship or publication. The copyright notice on the source site does provide a CC-BY-SA 40 license but is contradictory in its terms as it also places restriction on commercial use "Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited." In any case, I don't believe that the owner of the site is the copyright holder of this image so the oddball licensing is not relevant. The source page also links to acknowledgements and sources but with no specific detail as to which of these was the source of the photo. I also found the same photo in use at this site but again with no details about the photo. The claim of a CC license is dubious, and wew have no other information to determine this image's copyright status. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 20:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it could be kept on Wikipedia as {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check whether Abzeronow's statement about PD-US-expired-abroad might apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly taken before 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the creation of the image. This image is over 100 years, no point in deleting, this is clearly now public domain. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, there isn't any indication that this photograph was created by the UK government. Since the subject died in 1918, it seems logical that the photograph was published before 1925, but the author information supplied is not strong to give it a license for the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Correct we do not know the photographer is anonymous - EU law is 70years if author is unknown and some effort has been made to find the author.... and it has been. Victuallers (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2020 (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:Defective Person ;-).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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free T-shirt not published under a free license. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a photo of my front, taken and uploaded at my request for use on my user page. At the time I wondered whether the T-shirt design—derived from our multiple-issue article templates, which are obviously themselves free to reuse—was sufficiently creative to make it copyrightable, and so I asked at the media copyright help desk, where Graeme Bartlett gave me the go-ahead. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a derivative of a CC-BY-SA item it should point to what it is a derivative of. Second this image is only worth having here if it is used! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Super simple phraseology and arrangement (in both the hypothetical original, and this shirt) that is surely below US TOO. Image is in use now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The design is basically text; too simple to copyright; and the text is ours which we have released. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (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:Clarice Phelps ORNL headshot.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. Consensus remains that the original publication sufficiently released the picture into the public domain. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is covered at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clarice Phelps.jpg, the US Department of Energy is not the copyright holder of the work, and cannot therefore release the image into the public domain as they claim on their website. GMG ^talk 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The publisher's copyright notice says "Unless otherwise noted, they have been placed in the public domain ..." The source page contains no copyright mark, on either the image or the page. It is not "otherwise noted", so there is no reason to doubt that these images are in the public domain. The nom's statement that the US gov't "cannot therefore release the image into the public domain as they claim on their website" is the original research and legal analysis of a Wikipedia editor; it is not a policy-based reason to ignore the publisher's own copyright notice. Levivich 16:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our use of Oak Ridge images is based on a clear statement which is posted by them to advise the public that "they have been placed in the public domain". The contrary argument is based on fanciful rule-lawyering about their internal contracts, to second-guess what Oak Ridge are telling us. Such an amateur abstruse opinion is invalid per WP:NOLEGAL which states emphatically that "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law." As this argument is being used selectively to go after images of this particular subject, rather than all Oak Ridge images, this also may be a case of WP:POINT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that WP:NOLEGAL means we cannot discuss policies with legal implications comes off as less than serious. GMG ^talk 01:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Clarice Phelps – Distinguished Scientist.jpg because apparently we're just going to keep uploading this image regardless. Also noting that at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge the entirety of images from ONRL and the template itself has been nominated for deletion. GMG ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This latest image appears directly on the DoE website which has a public domain statement too. This was put up just recently (19 Feb). Oak Ridge have been advised of our concerns and their legal department has been advised by multiple channels. These agencies continue to publically assert the public domain status of these images and, as they are the responsible and qualified professionals, it seems absurd to challenge them. WP:NOLEGAL is quite appropriate for such vexatious disruption. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: The disclaimer you cite in the file page says not once but twice that media contained on their website may be taken from third parties where reuse not covered under fair use requires written permission. Please do not cite a copyright disclaimer if you only read the first sentence. GMG ^talk 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already read all that. The image in question has no photo credit indicating that it comes from a third-party and so the DoE think that it's theirs or PD. GreenMeansGo is creating difficulties where none exist. Neither the subject nor Oak Ridge nor the DoE have any objection to public domain use of these images and seem quite keen to put them out there.. They have had plenty of opportunity to say otherwise as their legal people have been involved. Per WP:NOTCOURT, Wikipedia "is not a quasi-judicial body ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation...". Andrew🐉(talk) 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Adding link to Ticket:2019042910007076 that should be considered and ongoing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GMG's comments. Enough doubt has been raised about this being a sufficiently free file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reasonable suspicion image's credit outside the DoE was merely forgotten and it is anything other than an in-house employee portrait. See (1) LINK to the DoE's Photography office, which specifically lists among its services doing employees' portraits (2) Also the DoE used THIS inhouse video screenshot still of this employee rather than, say, a news file-photo or stock photo with credit to an outside photojournalist or other source of professional photography. (3) Likewise considered in the pub. domain are, e.g., THIS, THIS, THIS, & THIS, all likewise taken at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as any number of additional photos sourced to yet other departments of the U.S. federal government.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "FAQS" page for the DoE's Photography office ( https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/employee-services/faqs#ETVC ) reads:

"[...] please call in advance to schedule passport/visa photos and portraits. ________ DOE Photography Collection (Energy Technology Visuals Collection-ETVC)
"1. Are the images in the collection available on-line? Yes. [Lists links where images can be found on DoE website or its flikr stream, etc.] [ . . . ] 4. Are your images in the public domain? Yes the images available on the web sites are in the public domain. [ . . . ] 9. How do we credit the pictures? Credit the U.S. Department of Energy. [ . . . ]"

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit LLC Ut-Battelle's contract w DoE[1] reads: "(c) Copyright (General). (1) The Contractor agrees not to mark, register, or otherwise assert copyright in any data in a published or unpublished work, other than as set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause" ... which exceptions (see text in LINK) (d) and (e) refer not to non-technical photography but to "scientific and technical articles" and "technical data and computer software," respectively.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like pretty clear Wikilawyering and making up of non-public domain status when there is no evidence for such a claim. In fact, there is a ton of direct evidence of the images being public domain. No concrete evidence has been given for the contrary. It really makes me wonder what the purpose is to be claiming otherwise? Silver seren^C 20:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reasonable doubt here given the relevant parties' explicit public statements re copyright. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the secret garden dude. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone and their brother. I understand GMG's motivation as being from the finest principles, but we don't have to be more Catholic than the Pope. We care that we only use free images, but it takes real work to make the very debatable claim that this is not free.--GRuban (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2020 (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:New Body - Kanye West, Ty Dolla Sign, Nicki Minaj.ogg

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#4 violation -FASTILY 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file is licensed under non-free use rationale that most explaining how the file is used in a way consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. But this is a leaked recording that violated WP:NFCC policy #4, and should therefore be deleted. Premeditated (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs a notable exception from Policy #4. West previewed the song multiple times at listening parties in September-October 2018, making the song publicly available. "New Body" has been played on radio stations such as Hot 97 (source) and supposedly other major radio stations (source). The audio sample is critical to the article, specifically the "Composition and lyrics" section. It was Nicki's lyrics that also lead to the song being scrapped from the album just one day before. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a ilegal leak, just because it was part of listening parties doesn't make it available for consumption (via download or streaming). Reddit is not a realiable source and just because a radio station play it, it doesn't mean you have permission to upload it. If it was taken from the album, then it is not to be featured here. → "Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor." For further information see here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (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:Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who).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: Fails WP:NFCC#8, the file is missing critical commentary in the article; its omission would not be catastrophically detrimental to a casual reader's understanding -FASTILY 03:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails NFCC#8, an image of an actor in character does not increase the readers understanding especially when the statement used in the caption is unsourced. Neither is the image being used in the way described in the FUR i.e. it is NOT being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. Nthep (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, you are a bit late. You can see that the image is mainly for "facilitating critical commentary" now. The critical commentary IS sourced. You can add more individual critic reviews who praise Bradley, Capaldi and others (there are some) as sources any time. At the very least, this image can definitely be used in First Doctor. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 07:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the documentation is incorrect, fix it. The image provides a key factor in how the character was recast from the original actor, and the response to the recasting and the new actor's performance. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those wishing to use the image to ensure the FUR is correct. As originally uploaded the FUR appeared to be correct but since then this image has been overwritten with an entirely different image and used within the article for another purpose. As for usage how a photo of one actor is key in showing how a character was recast without any comparative image of the previous actor I'm not quite sure. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to correct FUR, please check it before replying. You may rename the file if you want. Also, may I introduce you to Template:Multiple images? It helps in adding a comparative image of the previous actor. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The description (first parameter within {{Non-free use rationale 2}}) still reads as "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the article dedicated to the entity in question." It's confusing as the other information field - which you have edited - has been used to duplicate all the preceding parameters for some pretty much unnecessary reason. The redefining of the image by overriding the original upload isn't solved by renaming the file. This isn't a dig at anyone as I see a lot of cases of this but it would be much better practice to upload the image you want as a separate file with it's own rationale rather than repurposing an existing file. This file was originally uploaded to be an identifying image in the infobox, there's a separate discussion to be had as to whether such images are needed, but if it does get repurposed then the rationale needs to be thoroughly checked to make sure that it is still valid.

If there is critical commentary about the recasting from William Hartnell's portrayal of the first incarnation of the Doctor to David Bradley's portrayal then {{multiple images}} may help assuming you can find a copyright free image of Hartnell as the Doctor as compiling a FUR for Hartnell in this article would, imo, be difficult. Personally I'm not convinced that this image and/or a comparative image of Hartnell would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" especially as the article topic is a specific episode not "portrayals of the first doctor". Nthep (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the original image and rationale. If you want a comparative image of the character, create one. Don't bulldoze an existing good fair use image. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually zero sourced commentary about the claim in the caption that critics praised his portrayal. Fails NFCC#8 without out as now the claim to keep is original research. A free image of Bradley out-of-make-up (which we have) could be used instead, even if sourcing could be added; the non-DW fan seeing the NFCC image here will not really gain that much understanding since they'd have no idea what the First Doctor was supposed to look like in the first place. --Masem (t) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zero sourced: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc. The only criticism I've found is IndieWire's, which is about "the misuse of David Bradley’s considerable skills", they stated: "Bradley is an excellent actor, capable of far more nuance than he is permitted here." As you can see A LOT of them praise him (and other actors) and these sources are all in the article. Please read it. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those need to be in the article, likely part of a short Reception paragraph, to support the image. I figured they existed, but the article does not have them at this time, so until that's satisified, the image fails NFCC. --Masem (t) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aare no aspects to this image, barely more than a generic head shot, which convey any useful information about the praiseworthy elements of the performance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are currently two images in the history, and from some comments here it's a little unclear whether people are talking about the original file or the new single-head shot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no sourced critical commentary of any kind that would be served by displaying the current or the previous image. I don't think a frame like this helps the reader to understand that acting was so good that it received praise by critics. For costume or make-up, maybe, but not acting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jo-Jo Eumerus: my original nomination is based on the current version of the file failing WP:NFCC#8 per several other editors comments above e.g. Finnusertop. Nthep (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (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:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PD-text logo. Now on Commons. No need for a local copy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2020 (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.