Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 11

October 11

File:Title Card for Chicken Shop Date (2014).jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb images are not automatically in public domain. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the Deletion request on Commons I've changed the licensing to Non-free biog-pic and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Geraldine High School.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete as a copyright violation.. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{PD-because}} with the reason "school logo." However, my understanding is school logos are not exempt from copyright in New Zealand. Only used in draft space. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as DB-9 they clearly do reserve their copyright rights: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pied piper poster.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free -Fastily 22:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{PD-because}} with the reason "the film was made in 1933." However, corporate works are copyrighted for 95 years. This poster may be in public domain for other reasons, but this requires evidence. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that poster would stay because Disney's pied piper short is old and is now in public domain and I have almost forgotten that I uploaded this poster into its Wikipedia page until now. So I think this poster would stay. Belrien12 (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except as far as my research goes, The Pied Piper is still under copyright until 2029. The poster may be public domain though since I don't see a copyright notice on it (difficult to tell if IMDb has all of the poster though.) Abzeronow (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as fair use. Abzeronow's explanation is correct. The film has a valid copyright notice on it, and it's likely under copyright until 2029, unless Disney neglected to renew the copyright (which is unlikely). This image may be public domain, but we'd need more information about the poster to evaluate its status. hinnk (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - the poster does not appear to have a copyright notice on it, could it be possible the poster is PD due to lack of notice? If not, definitely relicense as fair use. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Abzeronow, it is difficult to determine if the imdb image is of the full poster. Looking at the image at full resolution, the top edge has a rough appearance compared to the side and bottom edges which are very sharp and clean. This leads me to suspect that the image has been cropped. Without the full poster, there is no way to tell if a copyright notice has been cropped out. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as non-free content for The Pied Piper (1933 film) where its use in the infobox would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Group Portrait of the staff of the Auckland Public Library with John Barr in the centre C1930.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not required to illustrate the article Epsom Library. The image might be public domain but I can't find the original record from Auckland Libraries to confirm that.

There is a free image of John Barr on Commons so fails NFCC#1 as well. File:1937_New_Zealand_Library_Association_Conference_in_Wellington.jpg Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kingsley's Chicken Logo.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wikiepdia is not a repository for unused files. No prejudice to restoration if Kingsley's Chicken is restored. -Fastily 22:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for Kingsley's Chicken. No other use. Can be restored if said article is moved to mainspace. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minorax. Thanks for bringing this here. Back in April, I requested the deleted article be restored/userfied by User:MBisanz who closed out the deletion discussion in 2016. I believe that there has now been broader coverage and the rational for deletion would not still apply. Unfortunately, this user is inactive so nothing has yet come of it. I will now pursue with an admin or other appropriate user in order to get an answer on this as soon as possible. I appreciate that it can be restored later if the article is moved, but if there is a prospect that the article may be restored, it would seem premature to do so, especially as it is tagged as public domain and therefore free use. Dfadden (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Loch 4.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Uploaded without a license, and unlikely to be the uploader's own work due to the small size and lack of metadata. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality image replaceable with numerous higher-quality images at c:Category:Jovibarba globifera. This one also has questionable licensing – it is attributed to "Manuel Werner, Nürtingen, Germany", but there is no evidence that this is the uploader.

In particular, the use at Hen and chicken plant can be replaced with File:Jovibarba globifera x 01.JPG. The use at Hen and chicks can be replaced with File:Hens and Chicks growing amid other succulents.jpg (which is already on the page in the gallery section). The use at Jovibarba can be replaced with File:Hen & Chicks (succulent plant).jpg. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe transfer to Commons. The uploader's name is Manuel and they are from Germany, at least according to their introduction. Seems reasonable to assume they were trying to upload it as {{Self}}. hinnk (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that; thank you, hinnk! I do not think this is eligible for Commons because it is one of the final 3 images tagged as {{assumed license}} (which is what brought this file to my attention). c:COM:GOF might apply, though it was not uploaded to Commons before the cutoff date?
I still think we should delete this image because there are higher-resolution images – without questionable licensing – available to replace it. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the pages that use c:Template:Assumed license, it seems like eligible images have been transferred over within the past few years (e.g. File:La Barca Condado.jpg) which makes me think we'd be good to do the same with this one.

I agree that there are probably better images that could be used. My suggestion to keep (at Commons) is mostly because the image still falls within scope and it'd preserve the file history for anyone who's reused it in the 20 years since it was uploaded. hinnk (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to move to Commons and make the replacements locally. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Missing license information, plain and simple. File was uploaded with no license and a bogus license was added by someone else. -Fastily 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WRP 2001 Chisholm-Smoke.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{PD-because}} with the reason "it is in the Alberta government public wildfire research website." However, works by the Canadian government are not automatically in public domain. The source website's copyright terms indicate what is equivalent to a CC BY-NC-ND license. Image is not used in article space. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but how would I go by acquiring permission? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman: There is contact information on this page near the bottom. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just sent them an email i'll tell you if they dont respond/respond within a few days, if they dont respond just take the pic down Wildfireupdateman (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64 Permission acquired. Just forwarded a series of emails your way. Let me know if you get it/don't get it. Note that image.png in the email is the image marked for deletion here.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman: I just got the email. However, permission "for Wikipedia purposes" is not enough to be considered a free license. A work must be usable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use, in order to be considered free. Furthermore, I am not part of the Volunteer Response Team and cannot process permission requests. You will need to ask the copyright holder to send permission to the VRT at Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload it on Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia and mention permission acquired? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman: Yes, as long as the copyright holder has sent permission to VRT. Just make sure to add {{permission pending}} to the file description page. However, be aware that files with insufficient permission may still be deleted unless they qualify for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind keeping it in Wikipedia until the article gets published? I feel like it would meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria if the article that I want to use it in gets published.

For the 10 questions:

1. AFAIK(I've looked for a while), this is the only picture of the Chisholm Fire I can find, besides some other (not as good) images in a study.

2. Yes

3. This is the only image I am seeking to upload

4. It was published on the website that I found it on.

5. Yes

6. Non-free content criteria

7. Waiting until I finish article

8. It gives a scale of the pyrocumulonimbus

9. Waiting until I finish article

10. Will do when I get permission from you Wildfireupdateman (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Can you delete it? and I'll reupload it when the article is finished. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dragon Age Dreadwolf Logo 2022.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and #8. This is the former logo displaying the title of a video game whose title was later changed to Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Because the image displays only the game's former title, its meaning can readily be conveyed by text, and the image does not aid the understanding of the topic. The logo, as such, is not discussed in the game's article. Sandstein 18:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really helpful to explain anything that can't be said in the article body. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Raqqacivilcouncil.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No standalone article. Usage does not increase reader's knowledge. Fails WP:NFCC8. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tabqacivilcouncil.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No standalone article. Usage does not increase reader's knowledge. Fails WP:NFCC8. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Manbijcivilcouncil.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No standalone article. Usage does not increase reader's knowledge. Fails WP:NFCC8. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Deirezzorcivilcouncil.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No standalone article. Usage does not increase reader's knowledge. Fails WP:NFCC8. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sayyid ummar bafaqi.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 03:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work - appears to be AI generated from something like the original file at ml:File:Sayed Ummer Bafakhy.jpg — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was some recent discussion about this type of image at WT:IUP#AI-generated images of people and the rough (unofficial) consensus seems to be that they shouldn't be allowed not only because of potential copyright violations but also for encyclopedic reasons. If the other Malayalam Wikipedia file mentioned above by JJMC89 is really the same person and its provenance is sound, then perhaps it could be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free (if still protected by copyright) or to Commons (if within the public domain or otherwise freely licensed). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Km sahib.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 03:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work - previously tagged with {{permission pending}} as if it were someone else's work; appears to be AI generated — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another apparently AI-generated image similar to the one discussed above that also has the same issues. If this too is too closely based on actual photograph, then it likely has copyright related issues per c:COM:BASEDONPHOTO. However, even if its copyright status isn't a problem, there are still encyclopedic issues involved in using an image such as this. For reference, this file was added to K. M. Maulavi with this edit as a replacement for File:KM_MOULAVI_SAHIB.jpg but was reverted about a week later. If both images are of the same person, using the one with the more clearly defined provenance should, in principle, be preferred over this or any other one with a questionable provenance and questionable encyclopedic value regardless of whether its AI-generated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.