Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 29
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sfan00 IMG in topic File:Logo of the company KSPG.jpg
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Contents
- 1 File:Arms-east-barnet.jpg
- 2 File:Starz 1994.png
- 3 File:Snap Mode In windows 8.1 pro.png
- 4 File:Logo raybestos.gif
- 5 File:Logo Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch.png
- 6 File:WAPA-TV logo 2007 TAG spot.svg
- 7 File:VRT (Belgium) logo.png
- 8 File:Tooncast.png
- 9 File:BNT logo 2008.png
- 10 File:BNT2 logo.png
- 11 File:DTS logo.svg
- 12 File:Codetel preverizon.jpg
- 13 File:Michel hermann 1938.jpg
- 14 File:BostonRiverLogo2.jpg
- 15 File:Peter Launching Bibles to Cuba.jpg
- 16 File:Usain Bolt wins the 100m metres final at the Moscow World Athletics Championships 2013 as lightning flashes over the stadium.jpg
- 17 File:George-horton.jpg
- 18 File:Golden Girls title card.jpg
- 19 File:Sacagawea dollar obverse.png
- 20 File:Planned Parenthood.svg
- 21 File:Calvert 22 Foundation logo.jpg
- 22 File:Bank of America.svg
- 23 File:VTech logo.jpg
- 24 File:Sport 1 rusTVchannel.png
- 25 File:Ptecuador.jpg
- 26 File:Chacoforever.png
- 27 File:Kidnapper Bengali movie.jpg
- 28 File:Megh Roddur.jpg
- 29 File:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks Logo.jpg.gif
- 30 File:Karnan Audio CD.jpg
- 31 File:College Night Wednesday Initial Logo.jpg
- 32 File:Dict-PhraseFable-2009.jpg
- 33 File:Logo Televicentro Canal 2.jpg
- 34 File:Malwa India 1823.png
- 35 File:Utair-express2.png
- 36 File:Unidosxingenieria.jpg
- 37 File:Marshall cavendish logo.gif
- 38 File:MitsubishiFusoTruckofAmericaLogo RGB.jpg
- 39 File:Npower logo.png
- 40 File:NYCTV Life logo.png
- 41 File:Venezuela football association.png
- 42 File:Socialistische Partij Anders.svg
- 43 File:Bnt-sat.png
- 44 File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG
- 45 Queensrÿche
- 46 File:Tinchy Stryder & Pixie Lott - Bright Lights.jpg
- 47 File:PETRONAS 2011.svg
- 48 File:KMTT-FM.png
- 49 File:Onarbor Logo.png
- 50 File:Logo of the company KSPG.jpg
- 51 File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
- 52 File:Yahoo! Mail logo.png
- 53 File:Stemma comune Verona.png
- 54 File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg
- 55 File:Pinnacleinclogo.png
- 56 File:VA-VA-VOOM-NICKI-MINAJ.jpg
- 57 File:Brisbane School of Theology.jpg
- 58 File:VanillaForums.org Screenshot.png
- 59 File:Indiatimes Logo.png
- 60 File:Alice Vickery.jpg
- 61 Boomerang (1992 film)
_logo.png){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaceable with alternative drawn from blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality concern, Commons treats this as 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The image on the Commons was uploaded by an editor with only nine edits, so I would not consider his opinion to be definitive. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is clearly not a free work as it is a screenshot of an as-yet-unreleased Microsoft product (specifically Windows 8.1). The image is currently used on Windows 8. pcuser42 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The image doesn't exist (at least not under this name). Please specify the correct file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it was there when I added it here, it's been deleted since. pcuser42 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- There was only text on the page but no image. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it was there when I added it here, it's been deleted since. pcuser42 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-Textlogo, PD- shape? (Origin is Pueto Rico, which I reasonably assume to follow US practice.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer to Commons. Most likely {{PD-textlogo}} by Commons' threshold these days. I put it here on en.wp out of an abundance of caution 4 years ago, back when we were (or at least I was) less brave about post-1989 shapes in logos. The font is well-known and well-used; the stripes are pretty much those of the Flag of Puerto Rico, the design for which has existed since the 19th century. --Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality may not have been met, PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD Shape or PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this meet TOO, I'm not sure given that it's only simple word/text arrangements to form the logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simple text and geomertric shape arrangment in single color, TOO may not have been met. Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely a text logo.--Rapsar (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commons treats this logo artwork as 'free' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Commons Equivalent is treated as being below TOO, but I am not so sure given the complexity of the logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is 'free' on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Highly questionable on Commons, since a public domain declaration would have to be made by the author, and I doubt this is the case, given the file's age and previous publication history – upload to Commons was only a fortnight ago. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Asked the Commons uploader for further details, suggest holding off deletion from en.wiki indefinitely. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the copyright holder has licensed this as {{cc-zero}}, so I have tagged this with Commons:Template:No permission since. The file information page on Commons is in Polish, but there is no indication that this was first published in Poland (which would have saved the image per {{PD-Poland}}). More likely German, meaning {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unable to find the image at the Commons; next time please provide a link. --Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) Threshold of originality not met (Free at Commons) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have tagged both images for F5 deletion, as they are presently not being used in any articles. --Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the claim of fair use seems improper to me. Image is pretty hi-res, and is depicting something that is not specifically discussed in the accompanying article. The article talks about a similar plan that was canceled, but not this. If it is a significant event, it should have its own sources, no? Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This file File:The Popoff Family.jpg looks like it has similar problems. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since Popoff appears to be alive and not in exile, non-free images here are completely inappropriate. While I note the article discusses the balloon launches shown in the first pic, it doesn't need the pic to show this (though if Popoff were dead, this would be a reasonable identifying image). Irregardless the first image is too high res and I've tagged it for reduction. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, the article discusses a plan, which never actually took place, to use helium balloons to float Bibles to Soviet Russia. It says nothing at all about a Cuban attempt, much less one that actually happened. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- True, making the image use more questionable, though showing how this passes NFCC#1 when the person is still alive is the biggest issue. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, the article discusses a plan, which never actually took place, to use helium balloons to float Bibles to Soviet Russia. It says nothing at all about a Cuban attempt, much less one that actually happened. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{archive top}} This is an AFP photo of an event at this week’s World Athletics Championships, used in Usain Bolt. My main concerns are:
- How can we know this soon after the event that this photo will be historically significant enough to meet the very narrow circumstances under which we can use commercial agency photos? (The photo went viral but this would not automatically give it historic significance.)
- Does this meet WP:NFCC#2 considering that using it now is when it is most likely to deprive the copyright holder of income, as its commercial value will be at its peak so soon after the event? January (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image. It's "historical significance" lies in the "two bolts", very unlikely to be repeated, and this of course is why it went viral, capturing the public imagination all over the world. It has already been widely hailed as the best (or one of the best) sports photos ever taken. The Daily Mail citation I gave it said was a piece precisely to that effect. That alone is notable enough for it be documented and reproducing it is fair use.
- The image is low resolution and will not deprive the copyright holders of income. It had already been massively reproduced in newspapers all over the world.
- What were your other concerns?
Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright aspect is different given this is a press image, as an image at any size will be a problem (low-resolution thumbs they will sell to websites to use for stories). So we need to have a very strong reasoning to use this to the point where the picture itself likely needs to be notable, not just that the picture is "historically significant" to overcome the NFCC#2 problem. Is there more than just the Sun article that talks about the image? --MASEM (t) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Masem. It was a UK Daily Mail article I cited, but there were many others I could have cited that ran stories specifically on the image Huffington Post, Toronto Star, NBC, Amateur Photographer and many others. Agence France Presse, one of the copyright holders, put up a blog specifically about the image that I also cited. Googling on "Usain Bolt lightning bolt image" gives about 10,000 results Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that's reasonably fair coverage to allow us to justify the image itself. (It's potentially trending to be a separate article, but it's smart to keep it part of Bolt's page for now), at least in my opinion. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers, Masem. I also think it's likely it will make its own article in time, but I wouldn't have the technical expertise to comment on it. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMO it does need more sourced commentary in the article otherwise it is or could be subject to a F7 delete request. LGA talkedits 02:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sources tend to be pretty repetitive on this. But the "Amateur Photographer" piece does give some new technical info, so I've added that. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Should be removed as violating NFCC#2 and #8. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be adding commentary just to justify the fair use. The question is whether the image is needed to support the commentary, not vice versa. January (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not really true, though there is likely a problem of undue weight that if one has to add a lot of information that is otherwise out of place to justify the inclusion of the image, which arguably is the case here - one has to divert the flow of the article to stop and talk about this specific photograph. But it is completely reasonable to be developing an article, fine a non-free image that you feel must be included, and then weave in text to support that image that otherwise continues to flow with the rest of the prose; yes, best results happen when there's already text that leads to including that image, but adding more text is neither wrong nor harmful as long as the prose continues to flow well. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the relevance of the text being added. If commentary is padded out to justify use of a non-free image, this may result in irrelevant material or, as you say, undue weight. If the commentary is not particularly relevant to the article subject, the image illustrating it is unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#8 in increasing readers' understanding of the subject. January (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not really true, though there is likely a problem of undue weight that if one has to add a lot of information that is otherwise out of place to justify the inclusion of the image, which arguably is the case here - one has to divert the flow of the article to stop and talk about this specific photograph. But it is completely reasonable to be developing an article, fine a non-free image that you feel must be included, and then weave in text to support that image that otherwise continues to flow with the rest of the prose; yes, best results happen when there's already text that leads to including that image, but adding more text is neither wrong nor harmful as long as the prose continues to flow well. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sources tend to be pretty repetitive on this. But the "Amateur Photographer" piece does give some new technical info, so I've added that. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMO it does need more sourced commentary in the article otherwise it is or could be subject to a F7 delete request. LGA talkedits 02:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers, Masem. I also think it's likely it will make its own article in time, but I wouldn't have the technical expertise to comment on it. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that's reasonably fair coverage to allow us to justify the image itself. (It's potentially trending to be a separate article, but it's smart to keep it part of Bolt's page for now), at least in my opinion. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Masem. It was a UK Daily Mail article I cited, but there were many others I could have cited that ran stories specifically on the image Huffington Post, Toronto Star, NBC, Amateur Photographer and many others. Agence France Presse, one of the copyright holders, put up a blog specifically about the image that I also cited. Googling on "Usain Bolt lightning bolt image" gives about 10,000 results Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright aspect is different given this is a press image, as an image at any size will be a problem (low-resolution thumbs they will sell to websites to use for stories). So we need to have a very strong reasoning to use this to the point where the picture itself likely needs to be notable, not just that the picture is "historically significant" to overcome the NFCC#2 problem. Is there more than just the Sun article that talks about the image? --MASEM (t) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Violates WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. There is zero discussion about the photo in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, there was a lot more about the photo when this discussion first started up. What is there now is not sufficient to keep the photo as Stefan states. What happened to that information? --MASEM (t) 18:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Much of the information presented in this discussion was never added to the article. Usain Bolt is a well-developed and actively edited article, so editors there presumably don't think this was a significant enough event to merit more than those two sentences. January (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Version on the Commons was deleted: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:George-horton12.jpg -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is treated as free on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alas I have been unable to verify the commons details and have asked the uploader for further information. The blogspot says "G. Horton, Regarding Turkey, ed 'New Frontiers' - A. A. Livanis Athens 1992, pp. 60-61" which puts the tag in doubt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image was deleted on Aug 28; issues about other images / other articles can be sorted elsewhere. --Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The free version, File:Golden Girls title.svg, is now established. I have added the free logo to non-English Wikipedias. Is the title frame replaceable? There have been two versions with the same logo. --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is wrong the title card as used in each country should be used, not a generic version. The Golden Girls has different titles overseas and the titlecard should reflect this on the non-English wikis. I am sure non English wiki editors would support this.REVUpminster (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't allow non-free images. I mean, how do you capture a Chinese title card of the English show? I don't see a legitimate release of a non-English version of the show. Also, obtaining the non-free image of a non-English opening theme is not easy, especially due to the level of technology in every country. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can certainly obtain the French titlecard which I have and could upload to French Wikipedia although with my French it will take a long while. As for this generic commons image the |Source = Own work, derived from this screen grab. is a rip off of the original image so must violate something. REVUpminster (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had a more difficult but related question recently about a crop of a famous piece of artwork to focus only on text rendered in it, and Commons affirmed that it is fine to do that, as long as what's cropped and left would fail to meet the threshold of originality. There's no derivative work aspects involved here due to the title only being text only. The issue about what other countries use doesn't matter, as, at least here, Golden Girls is a US show first broadcast in the US, and thus the US title card is the most appropriate identifying image, even if I were at, say, the French wiki. (To compare, when we deal with foreign works that may have later English redubs ala most anime, we stay with the original country's title card or poster, ala Akira (film)). --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can certainly obtain the French titlecard which I have and could upload to French Wikipedia although with my French it will take a long while. As for this generic commons image the |Source = Own work, derived from this screen grab. is a rip off of the original image so must violate something. REVUpminster (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't allow non-free images. I mean, how do you capture a Chinese title card of the English show? I don't see a legitimate release of a non-English version of the show. Also, obtaining the non-free image of a non-English opening theme is not easy, especially due to the level of technology in every country. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good work - this I think is completely fair to do when the "title card" is text only and can be recreated easily in this fashion (and ergo applicable probably to many many many other series if the title credits are otherwise nothing special) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- This image was replaced with a text-only logo. --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's the change that I agree with and should be done if possible for show title cards which have an easy-to-recreate, text-only logo (eg, M*A*S*H (TV series), Quantum Leap), unless of course there is some reason that the underlying visuals behind the text logo are of significant discussion. (Certainly not the case for Golden Girls, which is just a flyby of Miami). --MASEM (t) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- This image was replaced with a text-only logo. --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be making new dictats to suit yourselves. Why has this titlecard File:TOSopeninglogo.png not been so treated. REVUpminster (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is File:Star Trek TOS logo.svg. I guess I either have the non-free title card reviewed or nominate it for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh... there are more in Star Trek. --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I checked at WT:TV to see if there's any opposition to this approach and am not seeing any yet. So it would seem to make sense if the title card is not the subject of discussion for the series, and that a free SVG version can be made of what is likely purely text titles , we should be doing that. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Image wants, WP:TVIMAGE and to Use common sense. There will be edit wars everywhere.REVUpminster (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, and if the TV project - which makes those guidelines - see this appropriate, they will have to change the guidelines to reflect. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, even when it is "contexutually significant", the non-free image will fail to be "irreplaceable". Per WP:TVIMAGE, a non-free image must meet WP:NFCC. Since we got the derivative done, I don't see the need to keep this image any longer. --George Ho (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Image wants, WP:TVIMAGE and to Use common sense. There will be edit wars everywhere.REVUpminster (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly support replacing such non-free media with libre-licensed wordmarks (is that the right word?) like these. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Sacawagea Dollar obverse is not PD. See link below. --Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this be pd us gov ? Werieth (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can find, it looks like the answer to that is no. Much like when the government commissions a stamp, that doesn't mean the image becomes immediately PD. Unless a government employee created the image, the artist retains the copyright, and the US government is just a licensee.
- That being said, I did remove two clearly unacceptable uses. One was at Randy'L He-dow Teton, which is the BLP about the person used as the model for the artwork. As that person is still alive, use of a nonfree image in their BLP fails NFCC #1. I also converted to a link one instance of use on an article talk page, which fails NFCC #9.
- For the remaining uses, I think the use at Sacagawea dollar is appropriate. The reverse of the coin is a free image, but the obverse is the reason why it's called the Sacagawea dollar, and is discussed in the article. At Dollar coin (United States), the use is much more dubious, since the obverse image is discussed very briefly, and its aesthetic characteristics aren't really discussed at all (only the choice of model for the image, which is clear with or without it). There are so many free images of US $1 coins that this one seems redundant and to fail NFCC #1 there. Finally, at Coins of the United States dollar, it's just used in a table with many other free images. In this case, either the (nonfree) obverse or (free) reverse could be used in the table, as the image is not discussed. Use there fails both NFCC #1 and #8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-USGov-money}} warns that some US coins weren't made by the US government and that those coins are copyrighted. I'm not sure how to tell whether any specific coin was made by the government or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- This website shows the Sacagawea dollar obverse is not PD. Copyright is held by the US Mint, not the US Govt. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logo is out-of-date. I have replaced with a png of their current logo. --Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logo, consisting entirely of a name plus a simple geometric shape, probably fails to meet WP:TOO. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it isn't copyrightable as an artistic work. However, the SVG file might be non-free computer software per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. If so, the image violates WP:NFCC#1 as anyone else could make a different SVG rendering of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Theo's little bot will take care of the size problem. Logo is from the UK, so let's stick with fair-use. --Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatantly fails WP:NFCC#3b if copyrightable, but maybe this is too simple? Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) "Free" at commons - TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image at the Commons was deleted. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:VTech logo.jpg. --Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) "Free" at commons - TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) "Free" at commons - TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was already nominated for deletion in January at the Commons (by Sfan00 IMG). Decision was to Keep. Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) "Free" at commons - TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as fair use logo at en.wiki, file at commons bound to get deleted at some point. --Soman (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fasttrack) "Free" at commons - TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FUR is only for one use in the article but it is used twice. WP:NFCC#10c violation. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Removed once Tito☸Dutta 16:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#10c: used twice in the article but the FUR is only for a single use. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does not comply with criteria 8 - use of the logo is not needed to allow article readers to understand who the subject is. Caffeyw (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The one use on the article about the team falls squarely in line with allowable use as in WP:NFCI#2 and WP:LOGO. Anywhere else would be a problem but I don't see any other pages it is used on. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed non free image, so it deserves deletion. Another reason is, although the file name reads "audio CD", the image reads "Kathai Vasanam", which means "Story Dialogues". So improper filename and file usage Kailash29792 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- We can't delete due to a bad file name (as renaming is always possible) (also, as long as the CD contains some type of audio recordings, "audio CD" is a proper term). As to the usage, it is a soundtrack cover on a film article, where while the film poster is black and white, the resemblence between it and the color CD cover is not too different as to warrant the soundtrack cover so it should still be considered a bad usage. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- It still cannot be used anywhere in the article, because it is not truly the soundtrack cover and even if it was, soundtrack images can only be used in soundtrack articles. I could still use the image if the film's dialogues were released on CD/tape or have a Wiki article, but I can't find any such material. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- In general, yes, the soundtrack cover should not be used on a film article if the soundtrack is outlined there, but there are some loose accepted cases where a soundtrack with a very different cover (nearly unrecongizable if you have the movie poster) may be used, particularly if the soundtrack does have some discussion beyond just listing the songs included. This specific example is not such a case and should still be deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- If u r an admin, please go ahead and delete it ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- In general, yes, the soundtrack cover should not be used on a film article if the soundtrack is outlined there, but there are some loose accepted cases where a soundtrack with a very different cover (nearly unrecongizable if you have the movie poster) may be used, particularly if the soundtrack does have some discussion beyond just listing the songs included. This specific example is not such a case and should still be deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- It still cannot be used anywhere in the article, because it is not truly the soundtrack cover and even if it was, soundtrack images can only be used in soundtrack articles. I could still use the image if the film's dialogues were released on CD/tape or have a Wiki article, but I can't find any such material. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fast track) TOO not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is the thing on the left a tie or something? Looks original enough (unused non-free file). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appears to be a photograph of an in copyright book cover of 2009. Uploader presumably not the designer of the cover. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed this is an improper license. Further, as this book appears to have been in print since the 1800s, we should be using what clearly should be one of the earlier covers which would be PD + free. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I replaced it with a scaled and cropped version. File:Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.jpg under fair use. I tagged the other as speedy. As Masem says we should probably delete my upload as well if there is a PD version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1872 3rd editon. No cover work but the title page image is PD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- 14th edition Probably PD as simple text.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- [1] 2nd cover (or front matter) though it has some markings. We sohuld be trying to use the 1st printing if we can find a good image. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The 1922 edition still has no cover art. We should decide on the front cover 14th PD text or early edition title page. Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Peter and Wendy both use title pages. Probably because cover art was rare back then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I replaced it with a scaled and cropped version. File:Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.jpg under fair use. I tagged the other as speedy. As Masem says we should probably delete my upload as well if there is a PD version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](http://ia700701.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/17/items/olcovers703/olcovers703-L.zip&file=7038498-L.jpg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Corrected license templates have now been added. By me --Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An 1823 Map is clearly public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, both PD-1923 and of course PD-India. --Tito☸Dutta 05:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Item is now marked for transfer to the Commons, but I am nominating at FFD as the file is unused. --Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- True. --Tito☸Dutta 05:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met. PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met. PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The three-diamonds shape with FUSO logotype is certainly not mundane nor within the public domain. The three-diamonds logo is copyrighted and trademarked by Mitsubishi (which means three-diamonds in Japanese), used globally by a large number of Mitsubishi companies, and defended legally as necessary. See [2]; [3] Use in the Mitsubishi Fuso article conforms to the Wikipedia Fair Use Standard.
- I doubt that the Mitsubishi Fuso logo is eligible for copyright protection in the US, so I think this could be tagged with {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether this is eligible for copyright protection in Japan. I looked at [4] but didn't seem to be able to find a section clarifying this. The threshold for protection might be lower in Japan than in the US. On the other hand, even if it would be protected in Japan, the copyright might have been expired already (protection usually seems to last for 50 years). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per common's page on TOO, for Japan "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." Fails TOO in US and Japan, can be treated that way, but we can at least minimally put PD-USonly if someone worries that the Mitsubishi logo could meet copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not copyrightable but File:Mitsubishi Fuso logo.png is better so I suggest that we delete this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is considered too simple by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simple in the US, but what about Venezuela? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commons considers this too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Commons, this logo does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
fairly clear that they should only be in the man article Werieth (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:
- 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
- 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment
- Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The main article is of little interest to the readers. They will be interested in the history of the battalions, and not in the regiment, which is an abstract entity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- That goes both ways - if they aren't interested in the regiment, they probably aren't concerned with an icon used across many Battalions. For me, this is a clear example of where the minimal use policy applies. Are there not specific images to replace them? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- 5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, sorry for interpreting your post differently. Although I would have liked to keep the anthology-like presentation of songs highlighting a particular period — as copied off Rush (band) — it's true that Queensrÿche hasn't been "relevant" for over 15 years. So I have narrowed it down to their two Grammy-nominated songs, and I think it will be good to keep in the two versions by the currently existing bands, as it helps people identify a distinction between them as long as they're still around. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- 5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't see how two screenshots from the video enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. This seems especially redundant as it shows pretty much what the cd cover (File:Tinchypixiebright.jpg) shows. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commons apparently deemed this below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- What does Malaysian copyright law says? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have uploaded the new logo from the radio station's website. --Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free logo no longer being used in infobox (organization has changed logos). Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've added the delayed deletion tag, which can be contested by simply re-adding the file and removing the tag if necessary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Fast track) - Too simple, Threshold of originality not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article was deleted as an ad, so the image is orphaned anyway. Tagged accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not copyrightable in my opinion, but useless for us, so we should try to find a reason to delete it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Fast-track) This image does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{archive top}}
- Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG
- Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG
- Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG
- Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG
- Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG
Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Even then the burden to provide an adequate rationale for the season articles would be on the users who want to include or keep the uniform images in those articles. As is, those images should be removed from the articles where 10c is violated. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{archive top}} Needs converted to PD-text Werieth (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaceable, with an alterantive 'free' image derived from the Blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this was published in 1933 and the copyright was not renewed, then this is in the public domain in the United States. If the copyright was renewed, then I guess this might still be copyrighted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Term Extension Act. If that is the case, then the uses in 4th World Scout Jamboree, Magyar Cserkészszövetség and Pál Teleki might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the photo was published with a photographer byline within 50 years after it was published, and if the photographer died after 1945, then it is copyrighted in the United States regardless of whether the copyright was renewed or not. Also, we don't know whether it was published in 1933 or not. If it wasn't published before 1946, then there is no chance that it is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's probably first published anonymously in a newspaper in Hungary Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hungary or in another country that uses 70 years after publication of anonymous works. --Egel Reaction? 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. If it was published in 1933, then you need to determine the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996. If it was in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it is probably in the public domain in the United States (you only need to check for any subsisting copyright). If it wasn't in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it enters the public domain in the United States 95 years after it was first published. The Hungarian copyright law currently uses 70 years from publication (for anonymous photos) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (for non-anonymous photos), but the laws in 1996 specified a different term, and it is the 1996 term you should use for determining the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996 with regard to US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- This photo was already the subject of discussion back in October 2012: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 2#File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. My opinion is that, judging by the low quality of the image, it is a still from one of the newsreels produced about the jamboree; I was not able to pinpoint the exact source though I watched all three newsreels that are available on YouTube. The decision taken at the time of the Oct 2012 discussion was to keep the image as fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. If it was published in 1933, then you need to determine the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996. If it was in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it is probably in the public domain in the United States (you only need to check for any subsisting copyright). If it wasn't in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it enters the public domain in the United States 95 years after it was first published. The Hungarian copyright law currently uses 70 years from publication (for anonymous photos) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (for non-anonymous photos), but the laws in 1996 specified a different term, and it is the 1996 term you should use for determining the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996 with regard to US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's probably first published anonymously in a newspaper in Hungary Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hungary or in another country that uses 70 years after publication of anonymous works. --Egel Reaction? 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If we can't find evidence of PD status, we are again stuck with treating it as non-free, as was the result of the last PUF discussion. However, in that case the rationales need to be checked. Currently the file has FURs claimed for a whopping five articles and is actually used in three. All the FURs have the same F8 argument: that it's the last photograph showing this person in a scout uniform. This is a patently bad NFC case. We have free pictures of this person. We even have another, free picture of him at this very event, wearing the same uniform (File:Pál Teleki Papp Antal Kisbarnaki Ferenc Farkas 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. At least it's claimed to be free; maybe it isn't, but in any case it makes this image fail NFCC#3.) The idea that him wearing a scout uniform is in need of illustration would be unconvincing anyway: this is just a picture of a guy standing behind a microphone. We know what the guy looked like. We know what scout uniforms look like. We know what standing behind a microphone looks like. Nothing in the combination of these three things is difficult to understand without seeing an extra picture.
I'm removing the picture from all but the most pertinent articles, for now, but note that it will have to be removed from that one too unless free status is substantiated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Commons Deletion debate deemed this below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be simple text, as does a generic Parental Advisory.
Below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threshold of originality not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Software is described as being GPL, presumably the concern is the user content shown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(fastrack) - Does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Concur. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. PD text. Tito☸Dutta 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
'Free' at commons - Mechanical reproduction of PD-EU-Unknown? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has one too many screenshots. I think I could replace clip 1 with free image of Halle Berry. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Technically none meet NFCC#8, if any, the closest being the Halle Barry one but even then , as suggested, a free image would do just as good a job. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced struck files with free substitutes. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.