Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	29	29
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	2	5	7
FfD	2	4	6
RfD	19	23	42
AfD	0	0	0

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

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 12}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 12}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 November 12}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

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:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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.

Instructions for discussion participation

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

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

November 4

File:Man of Constant Sorrow by The Soggy Bottom Boys - single cover.jpg

[edit]

The cover art itself is hardly needed to identify the release of the specific recording. Sure, the recording itself may be notable and may have won accolades, but the single release itself wasn't that successful. It charted in just two countries: flopped in France; modest on the genre-specific chart in the US. When the song hit one million copies by 2016, I think most of them were digital sales. Physical sales hardly contributed much, IMO.

Furthermore, the cover recording itself isn't the main topic of the article and doesn't need a cover art just to represent the recording. Indeed, some or plenty other song articles omit one or more cover arts belonging to later cover recordings, like Last Christmas, Ain't Nobody, Something's Got a Hold on Me, and The Way You Move.

If deleting this cover art doesn't detriment the understanding of the whole early 20th-century song (the article subject) or the subject of discussion, then this cover art would fail to contextually signify the topic in question. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This file also fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) as it can be replaced with this image of the song's CD release sourced from Discogs (albeit cropped to show only the label of the disc). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a promo release. I'm unsure whether presenting just the CD itself can make any difference. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because the arguments presented by the nominator have no basis in rules or guidelines. There are no such rules about chart positions or when a recording is released or if sales are digital or not to determine whether a cover art can be used in an infobox. If George Ho wants to establish such a guideline, then it should be discussed by the wider community first, and not use it as arguments in deletion discussion. The cover art serves as identification for the recording in question therefore it would contextually signify it, same for all cover art for song infoboxes, therefore actual rules or guidelines on which infobox deserves a cover art would need to be cited, rather than a simple assertion of contextual significance. The recording is in fact the most prominent of all the recordings of this song with a Grammy win and a million copies sold, if there is to be a cover art for any recording of the song, it would be for this recording. And that cover art perfectly identify the song, showing its link to the film's fictional band.

If someone thinks that another file is more appropriate (and JohnCWiesenthal suggested one), then it can just be replaced and the file can then be automatically deleted. However, a file should not be deleted based on random arguments not based on rules or guideline as to which infobox deserves a cover art or what cover art should be used. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

File:Tom Tugendhat campaign logo, Unite Rebuild Win.png

[edit]

Invalid fair use that violates WP:NFTABLE, and also WP:NFCC#8, as campaign logo doesn't significantly enhance the article. Looks like this could just be pd-logo, as the logo is just text and the Union flag which is not copyrighted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to "PD-logo" or "PD-ineligible-USonly": This fails WP:NFCC as pointed out above, but it does seem like a good candidate for {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It seems to meet c:COM:TOO US for local use on Wikipedia, but might not per c:COM:TOO UK. The basic imagery of the Union Jack itself isn't eligible for copyright protection any more, and the image of the flag used in the logo seems to be pretty standard clip art. Given c:Category:Union Jack graphics, this would seem to be OK for Commons, but it should be fine to treat as PD locally here on Wikipedia even if it's not. If the consensus is to convert this to PD, the originally uploaded version deleted per WP:F5 could be restored as long as it's the same as the current version, and nobody goes ahead and uploads a cleaner SVG version to Commons to replace the png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur with reclassifying as PD-ineligible-USonly. I originally flagged it fair use because it replaced a fair use image where the Union Jack was blurred out; it probably meets TOO in the UK but definitely wouldn't in the US. AceSevenFive (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MPTV Logo.png and File:WMVS 2020 Logo.png

[edit]

Invalid fair-use rationale because there's no significant commentary regarding it. So, this image (along with WMVS 2020 logo) needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and if we keep these images outright, move to Commons and relicense them as (PD-US-1978-89), according the result of discussion regarding undeletion by Taivo (which also in turn based of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino, where it become free through formalities.) 103.111.100.82 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If these are PD, then they should be moved to Commons as suggested above. If they're not, then it makes more sense to me encyclopedically to keep the primary main logo for Milwaukee PBS and delete to two individual station logos instead. The sections about the individual stations actually started out as stand-alone articles about each station, but recently merged into the main article. This changes the non-free rationales for those two files' respective uses since they're no longer be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone articles about the stations themselves. Assuming the merging doesn't end up being undone, it's the non-free uses of the two individual station logos, not the main logo of the brand itself, that now have issues per WP:NFCC. The non-free use of logos used for primary identification in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about organizations are typically given a little more slack when it comes to WP:NFC#CS much in the same way as is done for cover art because the entire article itself is about the said organization; so, as non-free, the main logo's use seem OK (at least to me). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and affirmation. Since the main PBS logo is PD, this image can be moved to Wikimedia Commons and relicensed as such license (PD-US-1978-89) similar to main PBS logo (see See miscellaneous section). 2404:8000:1037:4E4:F92C:FA4D:AE44:A5BC (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons unless there's significant commentary regarding it. 182.1.234.31 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

File:WWKX logo.png

[edit]

Non-free former logos are generally not allowed and usually do not comply with NFCC criterion 8. Attempts to have it deleted by orphaning have been reverted. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this logo might be below the ToO. The Cyberpunk 2077 logo is no less complex than this one, and was denied registration by the U.S. Copyright Office. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

[edit]

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be noted first that George Ho initially nominated this file for deletion using a false claim that this song is in the public domain when it wasn't - [1]. I provided the information that it is in fact not in the public domain because it was copyrighted in the 1950s (and someone actually paid half a million dollars for the rights to publish it when it was used in the film) in the discussion, whereupon he "discovered" (as he puts it here) that it's not in the public domain. I challenged the deletion then because it is entirely wrong to speedy delete something based on false information, but here he wants it deleted again and for me to provide counterarguments here, so here I am.

This recording is without doubt the most prominent one of all the versions recorded. It won a Grammy (the soundtrack album it's in also won a Grammy), sold a million copies, and spawned numerous covers. It there is one music sample to be used in the Man Of Constant Sorrow article, this should be the one. As for contextual significance, its use can be justified per WP:NFC#CS where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. All recordings are unique, and it is impossible to correctly represent the song performance without using the actual music itself, for example its phrasing, arrangement, interpretation, the accompanying instrumentation, nuances, etc. Different recordings may also have different tunes (e.g. the recording by the Stanley Brothers is completely different to the ones by Joan Baez or Bob Dylan), so you can't actually use the scores from (presumably copyright-free) old recordings (e.g. by Emry Arthur) to represent the version by the Soggy Bottom Boys. They have different tunes. The only way you can correctly identify the song is by using the actual music itself. You certainly cannot use another versions to represent this version in the O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack) article. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both Man of Constant Sorrow & O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage of the clip in either article. -Fastily 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people ignore WP:NFC#CS that clearly states that commentary is just one of two ways contextual significance can be met, the other one is as quoted above - only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article, and I believe this sound clip meets that criterion. Hzh (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two "ways" are just common circumstances; well, there are more than two. Honestly, I don't think the article has sufficient due weight and balance to justify the file's significance to the topic in question.

Currently, it's used in the "Origin" section of the song article, according to mobile view. I don't see the section describing what the sample is supposed to demonstrate. If it were used in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section, as I suppose, the sample wouldn't make much difference other than doing the same thing that other materials are doing, like links and article text: drive readers into seeking (or buying) a full recording or other recordings of the song.

Song recognition (or identity or demonstration or whatever you call it) probably doesn't exemplify a depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject. I'm unsure why you think the content heard in the sample exemplifies the "prominent aspect" of the song, which existed and was (somewhat) notable for years before the version, or of the version itself, whose "prominent aspect" is yet to be determined. Why is this aspect "prominent" to the song?

Also, what about this: its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? You were implicitly assuming that readers wouldn't understand the very old song without the sample, weren't you? Unfortunately, reading the song article, I don't see how the sample helps readers contextually understand the song in one way or another, and I think readers would be fine understanding the whole song without the sample.

The sample is also used in the "Development and sound" section of the soundtrack article. However, I don't see how it depicts the "prominent aspect" of the whole soundtrack album itself, and I don't see how this aspect is "prominent" to the soundtrack in question. I'm reading just brief descriptions about the song itself over there. George Ho (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version, so the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect. The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song, and the most prominent version of a song would exemplify that song. I believe it was originally in the infobox, you can move it back, but it matters not, because that version is the most representative recording of the song and helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. Ideally we can add the older version (presumably copyright-free), so you can hear how the song has changed, but the old version is not representative of the song (no one sings that version now, it is no longer the same song), but the one by Soggy Bottom Boys is. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song. That's the case of using the whole recording, which automatically fails the "minimal extent of use" criterion... and the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version. Again, the whole recording. that version is the most representative recording of the song. Doesn't look like a case of a short sample but rather the whole recording.

helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. I've seen others use the same argument that what a song sounds like exemplifies "contextual significance", and sometimes the argument works only when text either contains hard-to-understand words or suffices in length to justify use. I see neither in both articles.

the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect Since it's not that obvious to you, I can't help wonder whether I already said above is sufficient. In this case, I just heard a character (or George Clooney?) sing one of verses throughout most of the sample. The sample starts with the ending of a chorus. I don't see text describing the verse itself, Clooney's vocals, background music, or anything else that makes omitting the short random sample detrimental to such understanding. Using some random portion just to identify the (portion of the) song doesn't exemplify "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself using your own criteria like using full song, text length or comprehensibility, and you should take that to the community for discussion first. Just like the way you use you own random criteria to argue for the deletion of files (e.g. chart positions of this song to determine if its infobox deserves an image) in other discussion, take that to the community first to gain a consensus before using such arguments. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. I wasn't serious about the idea. The suggestion was just sarcastic, but I see how I came across as too serious to you.

The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. A clip might or might not give a general idea about the song... or the specific recording. Nonetheless, it may not illustrate contextual significance to the topic in question, usually a song. In this case, the clip doesn't truly identify the history of the song or the song itself, which foresaw versions and lyric alterations.

Marketers use samples in shopping websites... and (old days) music shops to drive customers into buying an album containing that content or a single. Have CD-ROM encyclopedias in the pre-Wikipedia era included samples of songs? If so, what was the amount of samples per encyclopedia? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is just keep asserting that it doesn't have contextual significance, using apparent "sarcasm" to dismiss my argument. If you argument is that it's the wrong section, that is an argument for moving to a different section, your argument is not a reason for deletion. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, the use in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section wouldn't do much either except song demonstration, which isn't all what "contextual significance" (or "significance") means. If that "significance" to the topic isn't "contextual", then that "significance" shouldn't be in the project.

The non-free file must demonstrate how text is inadequate without non-free content. As I see, the text is fine to understand and grasp without non-free content, implying that the old 20th-century song itself can be already understood without NFC. The sample doesn't do much except mere portion demonstration/identification and doesn't illustrate the song (or the branding of it), which has a long history before the version demonstrated by the sample. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. Hzh (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. When have I ever done that? I read your points and thought I was counterarguing them well, including your counterargument to Fastily's "delete" vote. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to the one I didn't literally counterargue yet (It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself), then here goes: I'm not trying to ignore (or argue against) WP:NFC#CS, which is the guideline's interpretation of the "contextual significance" criterion policy. I'm either interpreting the guideline this way or using WP:GUIDES to decide whether to either follow the guideline or stick with the policy (to override the guideline).

A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. If that were true in all cases, then other samples that were deleted via FFD wouldn't have been deleted at all. Check the past nominations on .mp3 and .ogg files yourself please. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all), I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". It is the most prominent version, therefore the most representative version of the song. You appear to have your own unique interpretation of the WP:NFC#CS, adding criteria that aren't there to argue for deletion. Since you have been found trying to delete this file using false information, this file would have already been deleted if I had not bother to challenge it (few would bother to check the validity of your information, and I only challenged it because I found what you did objectionable), I don't take previous deletions as examples of anything. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly accused me of spreading "false information", which is a sordid accusation, and implies intent. When has information been "false" and intentionally "false"? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"False information" by itself does not imply intent to deceive. Someone can use false information without knowing it is false. Don't think I have ever accused you of "spreading false information". "Disinformation" is the word for false information with intent. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that that the song was copyrighted was mentioned twice in the article - by Carter Stanley, and by Lee and Juanita Moore. It suggests that you did not read the article properly to say that it was free of copyright. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all). When is a music sample required to identify the "prominent version"? I was trying to point out that "contextual significance" doesn't always mean illustrating what the song sounds like, but... ah, well. You always would counter-argue just to stand firm to your views, anyways.

I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". I will move the sample if the result is "keep"; I was trying to argue how pointless the moving would be if otherwise. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole I-mean-what-I-didn't-say argument is always an interesting one. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not in an article for the 2022 Andover tornado. That is a redirect to the real article which is Tornadoes of 2022. The fact that there are no known free alternatives only means that it might satisfy WP:NFCC#1. But a non-free image must meet all of the non-free content criteria, and this image was nominated as not meeting WP:NFCC#8. None of the information in the section (not article) about the Andover tornado needs this image to be understood. -- Whpq (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Correction: supposed to ping @WeatherWriter, not the other. Wrong ping, oops!) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your interpretation of sections on the article as if they are their own/unique topics is incorrect. The topic of the article is Tornadoes of 2022. -- Whpq (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've contacted Reed Timmer and asked if he's willing to release the image under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not get a response from Reed Timmer, so it is assumed no permission is given. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 11:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partially per Fastily. I really don't thing its removal from the page could cause any problems. There's already a plenty of media to demonstrate a lot other stuff. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

November 5

File:Navalized prototype Shenyang J-35 stealth fighter.png

The file is an image of a carrier prototype of Shenyang FC-31. We have an abundance of free images on c:Category:Shenyang FC-31, and even the carrier prototype is still here (at least not dismantled) and could be revealed in later public events (such as during Zhuhai Airshow). The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is currently no free equivalent of the carrier prototype of Shenyang FC-31, so in my opinion it does not violate WP:NFCC#1, i think we should Keep it WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WP:NFCC#1 is not whether we have or have not free images of this prototype on Commons as now, but rather of whether we can or cannot get free images. This is why using fair-use image of a living person is usually not allowed here, as we could still photograph the person or request free images from others. As the prototype is still there (and may be further developed and publicized), it is still possible to have it photographed in the future. Of course, if the project were later cancelled and the prototype scrapped, then this image would be justified.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the aircraft been in attendance at any public events? I'm inclined to keep this image unless there is proof that a photo could have been reasonably obtained. If not, this feels similar to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg in a broad sense. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The land based version is due to be unveiled in this year's Zhuhai Airshow. As long as the naval version is still an active project, I believe we can still reasonably expect for free photos in the future.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, sure. But that's speculating. At the moment I would say that there is no free equivalent nor could one be created. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral So be it.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World in Conflict USS Missouri (BB-63).JPG

The file is a screenshot of USS Missouri (BB-63) in the game World in Conflict, where it is used to describe the warship appears in a mission of that game. There is only minimal description in the image box and in text, and the image only serves as an illustration, replicable by free images on c:Category:USS Missouri (BB-63) to illustrate such fact. One should also remember there are already 3 more fair use images in the article.

(Moreover, due to strong reflection, Commons images would be way much better in terms of graphic quality.)

The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it provides no critical commentary or useful info for a reader beyond what existing free photos would provide. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This image actually doesn't violate NFCC#1, as there is no free alternative. Its been suggested by the nominator that a free image could replace this one, however if you compare this image to a free image of the battleship you'd see there are no armored box launchers, harpoon launchers, or Phalanx CIWS mounts visible in the image provided, which means that simply swapping this image for a free one would result in a misleading image of the unit as portrayed in the game. (In fairness to the point though, that's often a common problem, rare is it that a game actually endeavors to get the models right. If this image was from Metal Gear Solid 4 as opposed to World in Conflict, I'd be totally down for the switch, as the former got the battleship depicted accurately as seen here.) For the same reason, an argument could also be made this position cancels the NFCC#8 argument as well since the battleship only appears in a single mission int eh solo player campaign, which means that those who do not solo play the games, didn;t finish the game, or watch matches online featuring the game units are not likely to see this unit. Unfortunately for me though, while I can shoot down an NFCC 1 or 8 argument, I can not adequately address the hitherto raised issue with NFCC#3. If there was more to be said for naval conflict in this game that may be possible, but this was a single player unit and featured only in one mission, while the other two images are a more accurate description of the battle system overall. I would trend delete, but as I note above, I have reservations about any non free image adequately capturing the unit in this game, as I feel the real life free images and the fair use on present are too different to simply swap out, but I defer to the Non Free Fair Use Content Policy for this. At any rate, having said my piece, I post and await a just and fair ruling. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion, I appreciate it, all the more so since it seems harder and harder these days for people to reach out to others and let them know about deletion discussions which may concern them. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

November 6

File:Screenshot 20200420-103535.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 as F9 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author might be the copyright owner, but the file name makes me skeptical. So please upload a higher resolution image or an image with EXIF data. Sreejith K (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyright violation per this Facebook post in 2014.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:11, 6 November 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:WIC tactical aid carpet bombing.jpg

The file is a screenshot of World in Conflict depicting a Soviet carpet bombing run. As an illustration of how the game is played, File:WIC Tank Skirmish.jpg also serves this function by depicting a combined arms skirmish. That file is better because unlike the nominated file (where there are only a single bombing run), that file shows the player can command different units in that game.

The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#3a, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for two non-free images. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the tank image already serves the purpose of demonstrating gameplay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PolaAlonso.jpg

To apply {{PD-AR-Photo}}, the author and original place of publication must be known. — Ирука¹³ 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mario Party DS NA logo.webp

The logo is not simple. As non-free, not satisfying WP:NFCC#9, it should be removed from WP. — Ирука¹³ 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheBritinator (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, goes way past the threshold for simple shapes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The logo is too detailed to fall under PD-shape. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination; this logo has too many elements that are not simple enough and would pass the threshold of originality for copyright. Note that File:Super Mario 64 logo.webp was deleted for roughly the same reason. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Note that Japanese threshold for originality is significantly lower than other countries, and fonts are not copyrightable simply because they are stylized, although I do consider this file might be more worthy of artistic appreciation when compared with simpler ones like c:File:Mario Party Logo (MPSuperstars).png.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the gradients and overall composition push it just past the ToO. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

File:Attachment-Identity-Morality triad.jpg

File has been on WP for a decade and never been used. There are no references or precedents cited, suggesting WP:OR. Some of the concepts here seem related to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and similar personality quizzes, but others appear to be completely made up ("ego crimes"). I confess, the whole thing looks like nonsense to me. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KES footer logo.png

There is no evidence on the file description page that this version of the coat of arms is actually freely licensed. — Ирука¹³ 05:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugalia logo.svg

Former logo which does not significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Also fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with a free, current logo File:Portugalia Airlines New Logo.svg. Also has a non-free rationale for Qualiflyer article, but would not be a valid free use there either, as it's not the logo of that company/reqrds program. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qualiflyercard.png

Image of this bank card does not significantly enhance the article, as the card is the same as the company logo with a couple of additional logos. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items- as File:Qualiflyer2.png suffices as the only non-free image on that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ring Lady.JPG

The image is not in the public domain because it was taken after 1976. The publication date is also questionable. — Ирука¹³ 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yarmouth Castle fire.JPG

Since neither the date of publication, nor its location, nor the author of the photo are known, it is not possible to determine the licensing status of the image. — Ирука¹³ 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location: 120 miles east of Miami and 60 miles northwest of Nassau on 13 November 1965. Author indeed unknown (a passenger on Bahama Star). I think that this is probably cropped from the photo distributed by Associated Press on the following day; it looks a little different, but note that that image is a b&w version of the "blue separation print" for colour reproduction. This one is definitely the same image. It most probably appeared in the American papers on 14-15 Nov.

But would this not qualify for non-free use on enWP? - Davidships (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

File:Moonlight and Valentino.jpg

I don't see how this meets WP:NFCC#8; the only mention of this specific performance from 2009 in the article this is used in is in a list of performances. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Der heimliche Aufmarsch.mp3

The file is the original recording of Der Heimliche Aufmarsch, written and reportedly sung (in this version) by Erich Weinert (1890–1953). German copyright law protects works for 70 years p.m.a., which means the file ~~will~~ enters German public domain in 2023 (1953+70=2023). This also means that {{PD-URAA}} is invalid because the file is still copyrighted in Germany on as of 1 January 1966.

The file is therefore not in American public domain, and might need to be converted to fair use or deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is 2024, last I checked, not 2023. That means the file has entered German public domain. I'm not quite sure why you're saying it might have to be deleted..? It's in German public domain, not American: Weinert was German and not American. Doesn't it make the most sense to follow German laws rather than American? -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for making a mistake in the original text. For the purpose of URAA, it is determined on 1 January 1996. If a work is still in German public domain at that time, it is also in American public domain. If it is not, then it will be copyrighted in America for 95 years since the publication date. Also note that Wikipedia only follows American copyright law (and unlike Commons where it has to be in both American and local public domain).

~~That said, with the 95-year limit approaching, I believe the file could be restored and send to Commons once we enter 2025. Regards.~~廣九直通車 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... This is a sound recording. Per current federal law, the recordings published between 1924 and 1946 are copyrighted for one hundred years after first publication. This recording has at least five more years until the end of 2029 (or six more years until the end of 2030) of copyright protection. The song itself, nonetheless, will be out of copyright in 2025 or 2026... unless otherwise (like Bambi, a Life in the Woods). George Ho (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I referred to the wrong section in c:COM:HIRTLE... George is correct.廣九直通車 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turn-Me-Loose.jpg

Cover art not contextually significant to the song previously sung by prior band or the cover recording itself, which charted in only one country. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in song article because there is so much sourced, critical commentary in both the Recording and Background and composition sections that justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shortenin' Bread - The Beach Boys.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the song itself and musician who performed the content heard in the sample. Exemplifying/Demonstrating work ≠ contextual significance. Critical commentary insufficient. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

File:Woman on motorcycle by cami stone.jpg

There is no verifiable information about the publication date of the photograph. — Ирука¹³ 03:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

File:Quaid-e-Azam visit to the Pakistani troops.jpg

Since the photo was taken after 1947, it is not in the public domain in the United States. As non-free, it does not fall under the eighth criterion WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 04:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maj. Gen. A. I. Oleinikov and Maj. Gen. A. I. Rodimtsev, April 1944.jpg

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука¹³ 10:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caspar C24.jpg

The author is unknown - it is impossible to count 70-100 years from the day of his death. The date and place of publication are also unknown. — Ирука¹³ 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The plane was built in 1924, early 1925 making the image likely PD. There was only one built of that prototype, so the date of construction is well established. If the template doesn't fit then another template should be found. scope_creep^Talk 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Police Kollam.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Police Kollam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Duplicated Pink Patrol team in Kollam city, Jan 2020.jpg Arunvrparavur (talk) 23:33, 10 November 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.

November 11

File:Elliot Rodger manifesto.jpg

I received this photo via FOIA request from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office, but user Trade states that the photo doesn't fall under the public domain, and that it violates Rodger and his "estate" due to it being a typed manifesto. If it doesn't fall under PD-CAGov, then it should be deleted. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this as G7. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavel Rybalko.jpg

There is no information that the image was published before 1953. Also, the photo was removed from Commons and ruWiki. — Ирука¹³ 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sosumi.mp3

This is a complete edition of the Sosumi sound. It's not a sample of Sosumi. It's the entire Sosumi sound file. Sosumi originated as a sample of another song is true, but is irrelevant. The Sosumi sound is its own thing, with its own name, and Wikipedia article Sosumi, and news coverage. GreenC 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll fix it right away. In the meantime, I put it as a "sample" because it was listed as a sample of a xylophone. Although, I completely understand what you're saying, so what should I label it as instead? Please let me know ASAP. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know how to label an Apple OS sound file, maybe just that? How the sound file was composed or obtained is sort of secondary. In any case, it is not Fair Use to use the entire work, to be Fair Use would require a "sample of a sample", but it's so short, it is not practical. Possibly there is a replica somewhere that is machine generated and thus not copyrightable? -- GreenC 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I labeled it as "trademark", will that work? If not, please tell me because I may have to delete it myself before someone else does. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jibblesnark86. Suggest we ask WP:Media copyright questions, they are knowledgeable on obscure copyright issues. I opened a question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Sosumi_sound_file. Let's follow up there, and come back here, if there is consensus to delete. -- GreenC 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich of Russia.png

The fact of publication has not been confirmed. — Ирука¹³ 08:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files by User:Nowell 1011

Copyvios: clearly credited to other persons, missing their permission (compare the descriptions to claimed own works such as File:Supercat 7.jpg) -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michelle Chang (Tekken).png

I looked at the official press kits and I couldn't find this particular image there. I think this image is, at best, "a cleaned up screenshot" from the game. Or, quite possibly, just fan art. Which, according to NFC, is a double copyright infringement - of the copyright holder, and of the guy who drew this art. — Ирука¹³ 23:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's the image in question, it's clearly a render with a white background the image in question is cited pretty frequently too online. What press kit archive are you looking through exactly? Also it feels like we've had this argument before, I'm almost certain of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific press kit did you get this image from? — Ирука¹³ 23:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it's such due to being listed as official promotional material, and it being in the same style as other images in other character galleries from that game. The wikia also has a disclaimer against fan based media. This wording has been considered fine for other images, I don't see why you're assuming bad faith in this instance, let alone rushing to FfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific press kit did you get this image from? — Ирука¹³ 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question, and modified the description to clarify it's a promotional render by the company. If you ask it again I'm going to assume you're being hostile and not trying to resolve whatever your issue is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think you answered my question. Just like you thought I assumed bad faith. I didn't. And you didn't answer. But there were bad faith - now that you've edited the file description page, we know you didn't take that image from a press kit. You lied. And now you can assume whatever you want, the question is: Where and how exactly did you get this digital image? — Ирука¹³ 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I assumed as its labelled official promotional media it was from a press kit. That is my bad, but a mistake not a lie. Also you can clearly see the image on the page there. The image you tried to argue from the getgo was a "cleaned up screenshot" (despite being higher resolution than what's shown in the screenshots) or fan art (despite there being no indication of that), so yes, I feel that coupled with the accusatory attitude is bad faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to avoid your next "mistake": Where and how exactly did you get this digital image? — Ирука¹³ 01:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could link to the wikia on the rationale, but there has been past discussion indicating that such is frowned upon. Again too across a multitude of character articles, this hasn't been a problem for the images. Now perhaps instead of risking "implying" bad faith, if that's the source link you want why not simply say so?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The image clearly meets the WP:NFCC criteria. Demanding an exact, official source is not necessary. Honestly, the Wikia source should be fine to cite anyway. Also remember to WP:AAGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

File:Minatitlan in fiamme mattino 9 nov 41 da due sm79 10 stormo bt (saggio mattesini)1.JPG

Since burning ships are not part of everyday life, this photo is not a simple one and, according to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, it only became PD in 2011, which happened after 1996. — Ирука¹³ 00:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mongolian national anthem, performed by U.S. Navy Band.mp3

There is no data where, when and how this composition was published. Non-free status outside the US suggests that the sheet music was published outside the US, therefore we cannot mark the file with the {{PD-US-not renewed}} template, but must count 50 years from the author's death. — Ирука¹³ 01:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnson-olive-m.jpg

The date of publication of the photograph and its author are unknown. — Ирука¹³ 02:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VCJackForemanMantle.jpg

It is not clear what this Victoria Cross Reference site/Simon Manchee is and what rights they have to the photo. — Ирука¹³ 05:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Of Sport (UK) Theme excerpt.ogg

Exceeds MOS:SAMPLE's time limit rule and "minimal extend of use" criterion. Also, unconvinced that the sample (of the theme music) contextually signifies the sport programme. George Ho (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desireless - Voyage Voyage excerpt.ogg

Fails to contextually signify the song containing the portion heard in the sample. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthony Furey On CBC - Jun 2023.png

Unused non-free file. This was apparently screencapped from a CBC News report in order to illustrate a biographical article about an unelected political candidate that has been deleted at AFD, meaning it's no longer in use -- and, of course, we're not allowed to claim "fair use" on copyrighted images of living people for whom a GFDL-compliant alternative would be possible to locate or create, so even if the article had survived AFD this still couldn't have been used to illustrate it anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is November 12 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 12 – (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 "===November 12===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

File:MPTV Logo.png and File:WMVS 2020 Logo.png

Discussions approaching conclusion

November 5

Recent nominations

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

November 10

November 11

Files by User:Nowell 1011

November 12

Footer