Wikipedia:Files for discussion
![]() | Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here[edit]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Instructions for discussion participation
[edit]In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
- Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
- Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
- Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
[edit]Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
[edit]The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
- File:Screenshot from film Wild Dog Dingo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Altenmann (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The screenshot is used in the Cast section of The Wild Dog Dingo. The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- keep the poster is useless to understanding of the film hence NFCC#3a is not violated. If you insist, I may happily delete the primitive poster. The discussed image is crucial to understand the teenage love drama hence NFCC#8 is OK. It says more than thousand words written by a wikipedian. We do not do critical commentaries on screentshots, so this criticism is irrelevant. "does nothing to increase" is a personal opinion. I think otherwise, that's why I added it. --Altenmann >talk 23:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The image is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image cannot replace that of the poster as the screentshot is not a poster logo, or other such similar identifying image. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not write articles about screenshots. The article is about the film, and the image is used in published critical commentary of the film, such as here or here or [1]. --Altenmann >talk 20:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is no substantial critical commentary about the scene that the screenshot represents in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The screenshot illustrates the idea of the film: teenage love, not any particular scene. But yes, it is a notable scene and it did receive its share of attention. Added into the article. --Altenmann >talk 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is no substantial critical commentary about the scene that the screenshot represents in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not write articles about screenshots. The article is about the film, and the image is used in published critical commentary of the film, such as here or here or [1]. --Altenmann >talk 20:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It fails the second point of WP:FREER. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Text can and does adequately describe the contents of the image. ✗plicit 23:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- No it does not. The article about the film, not about the screenshot, and the images are supposed to complement the text. Many are using this image when writing about the3 film and wikipedians vehemently resist to do the same? There is a legal definition of "fair use" and a single screenshot does not violate the fair use in the article about the film. --Altenmann >talk 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions approaching conclusion
[edit]Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
October 15
[edit]- File:Legoland Reserve 'N' Ride Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VarietyEditor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Used in 4 articles but usage fails WP:NFCC8 as none of it is a primary topic and it's only used to indicate "Reserve 'N' Ride available" --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#1. Indicating virtual queues are available for the ride can be done with text (and in fact is being done that way in those article's infoboxes where this is used). -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:NHL Logo former.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalel2007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The old, former NHL (National Hockey League) logo is tagged with {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}, which disallows transfer to Commons. On the contrary, if the old logo debuted in 1946, this old logo's copyright wasn't renewed in 1973 or 1974. If it debuted in 1918, the logo might've or would've been all right to use in Commons. The logo itself uses plainly "NHL" not in the context of a literary work, such as Bambi, a Life in the Woods of the 1996 Twin Books court case. Furthermore, just plain (Latin) letters have been used (Cornell). Moreover, no evidence/proof that this logo is neither an American nor a Canadian work has been made. Should be transferred to Commons in either case. George Ho (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Past logos of NHL: link. George Ho (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This image should be placed at Wikimedia Commons for a long time ago, the correct place where all public domain images appeared. Therefore, i don't know why the user put them at Wikipedia-only, maybe because he doesn't know about image transfer to Commons. 114.10.73.46 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent nominations
[edit]October 16
[edit]- File:DavidFeldman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fws10170 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused, possibly out of scope or non-notable person. The main article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David N. Feldman. 146.196.41.141 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Logo of German Weather Service - Deutscher Wetterdienst.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RCraig09 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The DWD logo belongs to a "Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts" under German copyright law, and under German copyright law the logo is likely to be a public domain work in Germany. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this post is about. Is there a problem? I posted it to en.WP under the fair use doctrine. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it seems to meet WP:NFCC,
except that it will need to be shrunk per WP:IMAGERES, which I will do...(never mind, the higher resolutions seem to be available because it's an SVG. Nonetheless – Fumikas Sagisavas, what is the problem with the file? Cheers, Cremastra (u — c) 23:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Doing...)
- I agree it seems to meet WP:NFCC,
October 17
[edit]- File:Darlin' Beach Boys.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Usage in the song article and the album article may not meet NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" one. Also exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent rule, especially for a short song like this. George Ho (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Wild Honey Beach Boys.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Usage in the song article and album article may not meet NFCC, especially the contextual significance one. Also exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent rule, especially for a short song like this. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Let the Wind Blow.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Usage in the song article and album article may not meet NFCC, especially the contextual significance one. Also exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent rule, especially for a short song like this. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Bowes Ed Better Stronger TheKitchen March31 1979 courtesy Kitchen Getty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CoryHReynolds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Although tagged with a {{CC BY 1.0}}, there is no indication that the poster was ever released under such a licence. Nthep (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Nthep, I am wondering if you can help me fix my error with the Ed Bowes poster I loaded to his page.
- I am new to making Wikipedia pages for creative figures who may soon be forgotten without a listing.
- If the CC BY 1.0 license is not appropriate, can you tell me which one would be?
- It was shared with me by one of the actors that was in the film. I had contacted her for research verification.
- Also: Ed Bowes is still alive. Is there a form I could send to him to release it?
- Sorry for my basic questions. This was the first Wikipedia page that I ever made and I tried to do it correctly!
- Thanks, Cory CoryHReynolds (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Commons most likely – Looking at the old promo ad, there's the copyright notice, "© The Walsung Company", meaning the company was claiming copyright to the artwork. Went to copyright.gov (actual site, not made-up) and tried finding this material under "Better, Stronger" and "Walsung Company" and even "Walsung" to no avail.
- Worse, even the copyright notice lacks the year previously required by Copyright Act of 1976. In this case, let's treat such omission of year as if it the work lacks a copyright notice per 1976 Act (Cornell).
- Since the copyright registration couldn't be found, I can assume that the company failed to register the copyright or correct such omission within five years after first publication (of the promo ad). In other words, the copyright must have expired in the end of 1984 due to failure to correct the omission, so the promo has been in the public domain since.
- The bottom portion of the promo ad is just too factual and unoriginal enough to me (to qualify as derivative work) for copyright protection. Overall, the promo ad should be okay for transfer to Commons as "{{PD-US-1978-89}}". George Ho (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Rick Behenna.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WikiOriginal-9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file is free and should be exported to the Commons. It's from the 1983 set of Atlanta Braves/Atlanta PAL cards. You can find it here on TCDB. Note the lack of copyright notice. There are several more of these cards on the Commons. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
October 18
[edit]- File:Jug puppy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siddhu pec (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, low qualify. Better alternatives, like File:Chloe Jug 2011.jpg, exist on Commons. ✗plicit 06:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Move to commons; there is no need to keep it here, but it is still potentially useful (it shows a different position & age than the files in c:Category:Jug (dog). Cremastra — talk — c 20:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Socialist Worker US issue 571 cover.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rafaelgr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Used as identification in section of an article. No significant sourced commentary about this cover. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Https---commons.wikimedia.org-wiki-File-Special-cover-ramvilas-gajanand-sharma.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sandyshar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Special-cover-ramvilas-gajanand-sharma.jpg but with an unnecessary border. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – besides the red frame, which isn't centred, the image is slightly stretched horizontally. A redundant significantly lower-quality duplicate. Cremastra — talk — c 23:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Https---en.wikipedia.org-wiki-File-IV Guatemala International Series September 2021.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gfcorbett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused crop of File:IV Guatemala International Series September 2021.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be a crop, but a separate photo taken at a similar time. Compare:
- The woman on the left: in the nominated image (call it image 1), she's looking at the camera and half-grinning. In the other image, she's looking off to her right.
- The woman in the centre: in image 1, she is looking at the camera and grinning, leaning a little to her left. In image 2, she has the same expression, but she's more upright.
- The woman on the right: very obvious difference here in pretty much everything.
- Lastly, the quality of the nominated image is higher, so it was clearly taken zoomed in or closer, rather than just being a crop.
- So move to Commons as it still has value, but doesn't need to be just on this project. Should probably be renamed. Cremastra — talk — c 23:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cremastra — talk — c 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Https---s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com-issuewireassets-primg-14928-sumit-ranjan950544177.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Webgax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused personal image Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Https---upload.wikimedia.org-wikipedia-commons-0-08-8-Ball SF Zine Fair 5 Poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elbowplants (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Plausible copyright violation (deleted on Commons: c:File:8-Ball SF Zine Fair 5 Poster.png) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, given the uploader first says it is
by Alake Shilling
in their upload summary and the description and then claims it's their own work with {{PD-self}}. If it's from 2018, there's no reason it would be PD. Cremastra — talk — c 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
October 19
[edit]- File:PBS North Carolina logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mediafanatic17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Replaced with File:PBS North Carolina.svg on Commons and no longer used. 2404:8000:1037:587:B593:54EA:BDEF:A559 (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
October 20
[edit]October 21
[edit]- File:Battle of New Orleans.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
State license plates are not the work of the U.S. federal government and are subject to copyrights. The logo on the left is likely above the threshold of originality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WeatherWriter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free image of a tornado is being used in Tornadoes of 2022. The image is not the subject of any significant sourced critical commentary and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep — It is the source of critical commentary, as the drone footage (which is what this screenshot was taken from) is the topic of several articles ([2][3][4][5][6][7]). The drone footage was also presented/used by the European Severe Storms Laboratory at the AMS 30th Conference on Severe Local Storms, where they used photogrammetry (basically near the time of this screenshot) to determine the tornado had winds up to 118.0 metres per second (264 mph). So no, this does indeed have commentary regarding this actual video/photo, which was taken by Reed Timmer, who also has their own Wikipedia article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- As a comment — As discussed over on the Wikimedia Commons amid a huge review of weather-related photos, photographs of tornadoes, especially notable ones with lots of lasting RS media coverage, almost always qualify under the NFF guidelines as they are historical events and photographs cannot be reproduced as that specific tornado cannot ever happen again. This idea was also confirmed by EN-Wiki administrator Rlandmann (no-pinged), who has spent months reviewing thousands of weather-related images to see if they are free to use or copyrighted. Switching tornado photos to NFFs was even recommended by Rlandmann. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Whpq: — Your nomination statement “the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado” is factually incorrect. The section this NFF is used in covers the tornado outbreak of April 29–30, 2022. The topic is that outbreak of 25 tornadoes, not “Tornadoes of 2022” in general. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – I personally think it would suffice; at least in the relevant article dealing with the 2022 Andover tornado. There isn’t any known free alternatives. So I actually have to agree with @WeatherWriter (and disagree with @Whpq) on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Now that said; IF (and only if) a free alternative, even if it is at an absurdly poor resolution, were to ever become available; this image must be immediately deleted and replaced with the free one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There is a CC0 licensed photo of the damage/aftermath of the tornado; but that isn’t going to change my opinion since this deals with the tornado itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Now that said; IF (and only if) a free alternative, even if it is at an absurdly poor resolution, were to ever become available; this image must be immediately deleted and replaced with the free one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- And @Whpq, FYI, the link you posted for the cover. Is a redirect to “Tornadoes of 2022”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Correction: supposed to ping @WeatherWriter, not the other. Wrong ping, oops!) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, because it is a section on the Tornadoes of 2022 article. I interpret the sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics, given no sections related to each other besides the shear fact they cover tornadoes that occurred during 2022. Several sections (“outbreaks”) on the Tornadoes of 2022 article have their own stand-alone articles as one section covers one unique outbreak. In this circumstance, the section linked to specifically covers that outbreak and no other tornadoes during the year 2022. To me, I do not see it as a photo for “Tornadoes of 2022”, as the Andover tornado (and subsequent outbreak) is not mentioned in any other section in the entire article, as that section is specifically for that tornado/outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Correction: supposed to ping @WeatherWriter, not the other. Wrong ping, oops!) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – I personally think it would suffice; at least in the relevant article dealing with the 2022 Andover tornado. There isn’t any known free alternatives. So I actually have to agree with @WeatherWriter (and disagree with @Whpq) on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Whpq: — Your nomination statement “the topic which is Tornadoes of 2022, and not this specific tornado” is factually incorrect. The section this NFF is used in covers the tornado outbreak of April 29–30, 2022. The topic is that outbreak of 25 tornadoes, not “Tornadoes of 2022” in general. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:NewsHour HD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Melesse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This title card is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary and thus violates WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Carving of Draco Lawgiver in US Supreme Court library.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nathan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Several issues with the current fair use rationale:
- Currently it pertains only to the photograph; there is no information given about the copyright status of the carving itself
- Purpose of the image is given as "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". As this is an imagined portrait not based on any ancient model and made more than two millennia after Draco's lifetime, there is no reason to believe that other depictions of Draco would in any way resemble this so it does not help substantially with identification.
- Rationale for being irreplaceable with free media is given as "I have been unable to find any cc-by-sa or Wikimedia-compatible photos of Draco available." However, Commons does have one (admittedly not good!) image of Draco. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Dunkin' Donuts logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tkgd2007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This former logo fails both WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent), as the logo can be explained with the derived wordmark c:File:Dunkin-donuts-1-logo-png-transparent.png on Commons, and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), as the logo is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:WS-WiiRemote Example.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guyinblack25 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This file fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent), specifically WP:FREER. The bottom two diagrams can be replicated with freely-licensed photographs. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
October 22
[edit]Footer
[edit]Today is October 22 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 22 – (new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===October 22===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.