Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 31

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 29

→

File:Zachara2.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Image is likely to be in public domain and will be appropriately relicensed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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 a playbill/program of US Origin. Whilst I am willing to be convinced otherwise, I find it unlikely that such an item would have it's copyright renewed, and thus this image would be in the public domain, the copyright in the playbill having lapsed (or not been registered in the first place.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is very unlikely that someone would renew the copyright to something like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 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.

File:FELIPE SEGUNDO GUZMÁN.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Converted to fair use. --Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 8 October 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.

Apparently released under Creative Commons ( according to Wikimedia Commons) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The file no longer exists on the Commons, not that I can find. A link to the Commons image would have been helpful. I am converting the local copy to fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 8 October 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.

File:TalkRadioXM.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 00:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Now on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 6 October 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.

File:NixonandMeir.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Not enough evidence to show image is official state department photo. Free photo found and uploaded to Commons: File:President Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, meeting in the Oval Office 1973.gif‎. Original image tagged as orphaned non-free. If can later be proven that file is official state department photo, can most definitely be re-uploaded. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:07, 15 October 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.

Query, This is sourced to an official archive, Is this an official State Department photo, if so it could be freely licensed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say anything without more thorough research, but if the image is from NSA archive, then the publication on the site given in the source link might be the first publication ever, in which case it would be copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if the photo was taken by a gov't employee, then that would make it PD-Gov; on the other hand, if it was a press photo published by the US Gov, that still makes it copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The image shows high-ranking Israeli and American politicians, so it was presumably taken by someone working for either country's government. If it was taken by the US government, then it is in the public domain. On the other hand, if it was taken by the Israeli government, then it is presumably not in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I was unable to find this image at the Nixon Presidential Library archive or at NARA. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think this NARA image would provide a free alternative; however, I am not quite confident to upload it myself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:25, 29 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.

Ulster Defence Regiment

Latest comment: 11 years ago52 comments5 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus has been met for the remaining images to stay in the article (as long is there is appropriate discussion about said images, which there currently is). Images that required deletion by consensus have been deleted through other methods. No further discussion in over seven weeks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:25, 14 October 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 editor has removed these images from the page on the grounds that they are not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Having read the guidance I believe he is wrong and that the inclusion of these files is both related to the text and adds significantly to the readers knowledge when researching the army regiment.

My comments on the users talkpage are here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Werieth#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is not needed to understand the organization, it is being used decorative File:Glenane.jpg doesn't need to be re-included as it is already used in the article about the event. Finally File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg isnt referenced in the text at all, thus failing WP:NFCC#8 part two. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Werieth is approaching this in an encyclopaedic fashion. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is an historic record of a very simple application form to join a very complicated regiment and is very much referenced in the accompanying text. The attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment's base at Glenanne is "parented" at the source article and the file is very relevant to that incident. That it is repeated in a sub article is of no consequence in my view. File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster are posters commissioned by political opponents to the regiment and show historically how there was a campaign against the UDR. They are required for balance of opinion. In an article as sensitive as this which has been fought over many times, editors must get the WP:WEIGHT of opinion correct otherwise the article will not comply with WP:NPOV. The removal of these two political posters could affect the NPOV balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to add that I am currently engaged in a rewriting process of the UDR article, as can be seen from the many changes over the last week. I have not arrived at the "Political comment" section yet but when I do I fully intend to make reference to the poster images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has it right for NFCC, which these all fail. The application form is "interesting" but not the subject of discussion in the article, and thus the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed by its omission and it fails NFCC#8. The Glenanne photo is inappropriate since it is duplicating the use on the appropriate article for the attack (where the photo is properly used under NFCC), and does not here aid in the reader's understand of the regiment. You don't need to show opponent campaign posters to meet the neutral POV - you can explain in text that the regiment has opposition. Basically, just because something exists, NFCC does not allow us to use an image to simply illustrate this - we need contextual significant that none of the tagged images show here. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant "context" here is that the topic of the article is the UDR. An image does not necessarily need to be discussed, if in itself it conveys something important to reader understanding in that context, beyond what could just be conveyed in words. I don't see a lot in the File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg over what could be conveyed in words; on the other hand IMO the :File:Original Anti-UDR poster does I think have a power and a forcefulness as an image which goes beyond what a mere bland text description would convey, and which I think does usefully convey to the reader the viscerality of the opposition that there was to the UDR from some parts of the community, which is a key thing for the article to communicate. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If these files were deemed to be out of context for non free fair use it was incumbent upon Werieth to discuss the images on the article talk page firstly as per WP:IUP#4. Had this been done it was (and still is) possible to modify the text to bring the images into line with the guidelines quoted although I believe the issue is moot in this case. All of the images are being used in a correct historical context and add to the reader experience. This has been done in a clumsy manner at a time when the article is being rewritten and tightened up. I suggest the images be restored and a period of time given to allow me to fully comply with the concerns stated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective is completely against policy, you dont write and article so that you include media, you include media because the article requires it. Not the way you want to do it. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fundamentals for editing the wiki is WP:GOODFAITH. You have been shown it by both myself and Calil on this occasion. These images (barring File:Glenane.jpg) have all been discussed at length for around 10 years and always been agreed by editors as adding to the experience of reading the article. Your position of authority (whether official or self styled) also carries with it a responsibility. From where I'm sitting you appear to have neglected that in your lack of good faith towards myself and the other editors involved at Ulster Defence Regiment. To explain: it isn't a case of making the text fit the images - it's down to how the text is written and what emphasis is laid upon the images. If I have made errors in my editing which have orphaned the images then I need to be given the consideration of being allowed to correct that. As has already been pointed out; you should have been polite enough to raise concerns about these images before deletion. If you had examined the talk page you would have seen that extensive rewriting is going on. Yes it is sometimes necessary to delete text or images for the benefit of the article but in this case I do not agree with your unilateral declaration without discussion. Nor do I agree with your violation of the 1RR rule. As Calil has pointed out, you are not exempt from sanctions and as I have frequently reminded you, you should pay attention to ALL wiki guidelines, not just the ones which suit your current agenda. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have an "agenda", it may have been discussed for years, however I doubt those who where discussing it took WP:NFCC requirements into consideration (this rarely happens due to peoples lack of understanding NFCC). I have made no assumptions of bad faith, if anything I have taken a fairly neutral position in regards to the motivation of your edits. My actions have been fairly impartial in that regards. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling the partiality of your edits into question. What I'm saying is that you are a deletionist and in being so you are losing sight of other criteria which matter. In other words your agenda is to delete. Discussion is the most important thing on articles and you failed to consider how the incorporation of these images could be discussed. A proper discussion on the talk page could have avoided all of this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, I am not a deletionist, why have I uploaded over 200 non-free files if my agenda is to just delete? Werieth (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS just did some number crunching and Im actually in the top 300 uploaders with regards to the amount of non-free files that I have uploaded. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have put my opinion to you. It's all very well you citing WP:NPA to me btw but yet you've ignored WP:IUP#4, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:1RR. Do I need to remind you that editors such as I give so much time to Wikipedia and we expect to be treated with a little respect when there is an issue. I am in the middle of rewriting that article as I've said manifold times now. How do you think I feel when someone deletes images without a collegiate discussion? I'm sitting here surrounded by books reading to start editing constructively yet I've spent my day trying to make a case for saving these images? Yes, there was a better way to do it - discuss, discuss, discuss, then you can't go wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is a personal attack. WP:IUP#4 doesn't apply as I am not deleting any files (just removing a use). GOODFAITH isnt an issue here either as I never said you where inserting these files in bad faith. as for 1RR, see also Wikipedia:1RR#3RR_exemptions. I do tend to take all relevant policies into consideration when reviewing the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend it to be a personal attack. You should have discussed the removal of the images however. Politeness is a standard wiki protocol. You could see the article was being worked on and could have made suggestions regarding the images, I would have welcomed that. Your link to your exemptions only applies to WP:3RR. As you have already been advised by a sysop you are not exempt for WP1RR as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you are not familiar with articles concerning The Troubles it would be a good idea to read this and other associated material. I have told you a number of times I am prepared to consider the images more carefully when rewriting material which may have been part of the causality of their removal. It boils down to the same thing however: you have not taken my objections in WP:GOODFAITH. You have shown no consideration for the rewriting of the article and above all - you have failed to discuss before removing the images. Thereby creating an unwarranted diversion from the real work of refining the UDR article. As said before, all of this could have been avoided if you'd adopted a policy of discussion as recommended by the wiki.

I repeat my earlier suggestion of restoring the images and allowing me the time to reconstruct the text (which was originally totally inclusive of the images). This is not a question of making the image fit the article, it's a question of using available material in the correct place and in the correct manner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

/facepalm . You don't get it, Feel free to improve the article, I will not re-include media that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. As you have seen above there might be justification for 1 file. You again need to re-examine NFCC. You shouldn't change text to justify a file. Before you add the file, the article should have a requirement for the file. When using NFCC you should ask can the article be understood without this file? If the answer is yes, the you should really question whether or not the article really needs the file. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, with respect but in my view it's you who isn't getting it. This article has been fought over so long that some items have become orphaned. I have told you on multiple occasions that is being addressed but can only be achieved over a period of time. I have suggested that you return the files so that the text around them can be restored to include what made them relevant in the first place. Furthermore, and after consideration, I suggest you remove the File:Glenane.jpg file from the sub article Glenanne barracks bombing rather than the parent article. For the avoidance of doubt, the Glenanne Barracks was a satellite base of the 2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment and contained two companies of 2UDR - no other troops were present. This makes the UDR article the parent article. Again, pointing out that no disrespect is intended towards you or your efforts but when the text for "Recruitment" and "Political comment" is properly restored, the article will be crying out for the inclusion of the images so all you've done is highlight the need for this but the files will eventually be restored with full supporting text. It follows that this discussion is a waste of your time and mine - despite your good intentions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The image File:Glenane.jpg has now been removed from Glenanne barracks bombing and restored at the parent article Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces. As agreed by all this file is relevant and used properly with the objection being that it was used twice. Now it's only being used once. Fair?

For further reference: I am in two minds as to whether or not the article on the Glenanne Barracks bombing ahould be kept on the wiki as there is a separate article entitled Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment which I believe should incorporate the information, thus rendering the Glenanne article an un-needed repetition. All things in time however. The UDR article requires a lot more work before I will be free to address other issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The image was perfectly fine as an example of the damage from the barracks bombing, and NFCC#8 would have been met there. The link from the Regiment page to the bombing page would have been just fine and why the image wouldn't need to be on the Regiment page. (And I've no comment if the Glenanne bombing page should be merged into the Attacks page, but if they are, that still makes the image better on that page than on the Regiment page since that's what the image is specifically about.) --MASEM (t) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I dispute what you're saying and I'll tell you why: there is no need for a separate article on every event the UDR was involved in, or the IRA for that matter. It's much more encyclopaedic to keep as much information as possible on the UDR article itself, to the point where it starts to become too overcrowded or too long. All of these separate articles have been created to add undue WP:WEIGHT to certain events as a result of the terrible infighting that went on for far too long on articles concerning The Troubles. The wiki is much better served in my opinion by the reduction of such articles. The Glenanne bombing was a direct attack on the UDR and that's where the info, and the image, belong. You might disagree but WP:BOLD doesn't. If you have a particular interest in articles on the Troubles may I respectfully suggest you join the discussion on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. If you don't have this in your area of interest I suggest, again respectfully, that you leave such discussions up to the people who have the interest, time to give, knowledge and sources to create and fine tune articles with appropriate collegiate discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not disagree that considering the three articles together (the Regiment, the Glenanne, and the attacks) that there is probably one article too many, though all can't be reduced to one due to the size of the Regiment article. If it were that all the info on those three pages were just on the Regiment article (in the depth that the Glenanne part goes into) then yes, I can see justification for using the image there. But until this "merge" happens (and because its under the Troubles, its definitely one that needs consensus to do so) the Glenanne article exists as a separate topic, and the picture is only relevant there (it's showing a direct result of the bombing), with the use on the Regiment page excessive and inappropriate (the picture has little to do with the Regiment topic directly). All I'm speaking to is the NFCC aspects of this, which requires that picture to be on the Glenanne page for all purposes, while the Glenanne page exists as a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interim I have copied the relevant information to the "attacks" article and am now going to request deletion of the Glenanne Bombing article as most of it, quite frankly, is cruft, just padding to justify having it. The "attacks" article is a list which doesn't warrant images, ergo the only sensible place to put the image is on the parent site - Ulster Defence Regiment. I'm not trying to thwart NFCC by doing this, in the words of Martin Luther King, "I have a dream". In my case it's a complete tidying up of all articles to do with the Ulster Defence Regiment and if you look at the parent article, its history and the talk page, you can see I've been working hard, in a collegiate and sensible manner, something which sysops are probably glad to see given the amount of time they've had to spend on the WP:BATTLE which has been going on for over 10 years. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As a non-NFCC issue of caution - the Glenanne article should be merged and made a redirect, not deleted, as it is a searchable term (particularly if you've copied information from it into the Regiment article, to retain the history). As the net NFCC solution, that is appropriate for the bombing photo as long as the Glenanne article is merged (or deleted). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to redirect the article. It does sound like a suitable alternative to deletion though. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If not for Troubles, you could be bold and simply replace the contents with the redirect tag (WP:REDIRECT for instructions). But with Troubles that might be seen as a problem, and so a merge request (WP:MERGE) would be the right way to do that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that once I've finished with the item I'm working on at the moment. Thank you for the advice. At least something practical has come from this intervention although I would have got round to these modifications eventually. Just hadn't intended to be distracted so soon. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to do it with a redirect and I've learned something new as a result. Thank you again. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

I note with disappointment there has been no further activity on this item. After great pondering I would like to offer the following as a solution:

1. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg to remain where it is in Ulster Defence Regiment#Formation and recruitment. On the grounds that it illustrates an important historical document outlined in depth in the section

2. File:Glenane.jpg to be removed from Ulster Defence Regiment#Opposition forces pending the outcome of discussion at Talk:Glenanne_barracks_bombing#Discussion.

3. Discussion invited on File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster. I believe these are important illustrations of the depth of opposition to the regiment felt by at least one political party. It is my view that they have been orphaned by the removal of text which violated WP:WEIGHT. The section they were residing in Ulster Defence Regiment#Political comment is in my sandbox awaiting a rewrite which will take in the political comments and viewpoints encompassing the entire 22 year period of the regiment's history. Once this is done I believe the section will reflect the need for both images. I am happy to submit the rewritten section for reconsideration once it is done. In the interim I will not attempt to restore the images.

May I have comment/discussion on these proposals please? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Point 1, image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Point two, file should be removed. Point 3, after the re-write we can re-review the need for the images. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Following our discussions (and some with others). I have taken this action: File:Glenane.jpg has been removed. The "Political comment" section has been rewritten, with an eye on what existed previously, and the new text at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Non-constitutional_politics makes reference to File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster with the background for their production and deployment, properly sourced.

I invite comment regarding the proposed use of the two political posters on the grounds that they are required to illustrate what such propaganda posters look like in the context of the political argument surrounding the regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing any need for the two posters in that section. Werieth (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The text in the section makes particular reference to them as a propaganda tool. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now both File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg] and File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg need to be removed. Werieth (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Update:
File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
File:The Yellow Crad.jpg
File:The Blue Card.jpg
- All of those files clearly fail NFCC and need removed. Werieth (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg. Properly discussed in the text.
Keep File:The Yellow Crad.jpg and File:The Blue Card.jpg. Copyright is accurate and both items are properly referenced in the text and of historical importance. This entire section is the only section on the wiki which devotes any serious attention to these historical documents.
Delete File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg. I accept the image isn't needed. After the A Class review I will discuss the options of starting a separate article or at least a full section to Cpl Eric Glass and at that juncture the image can be reintroduced. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These all fail WP:NFCC#8, just because something is discussed doesn't mean that it needs an image. Werieth (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my belief that the three historical documents I have voted to keep have a significance which greatly enhances the understanding of any reader of the sections they are contained within. I believe that the removal of these images from their respective sections would be detrimental to that understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The application form is simply that - it is an application form with all the usual fields one would expect to find on such (name, address, family, why one is enlisting). If there was some unique factor that was the subject of sourced commentary in the text that appeared on the form (I have no idea what, but I can envision extreme examples) then it might be okay, but it just is a piece of typewritten paper with all the usual fields one can expect. It does not aid the reader in any way. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes it unique is the heading. "Ulster Defence Regiment". It is so markedly different from any other form to join the British forces at that time. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just being different in name is nothing unique. The article does not say how this form is "markedly different" from any other recruitment form (outside of the name), nor do I believe this is the case given what information we see. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So, apart from deletion, what would you see as a possible solution to this issue? It is, in my mind, an important historical document. It must have been incredibly difficult to get hold of and I don't think it should be lost from the article. I realise that Wikipedia is not a repository for historical documents but I firmly believe that, in this case, the document fits the text and enhances a reader's understanding of the subject matter.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as the document is published elsewhere, it is not our responsibility as a tertiary source to include it. While it may be a historical document, it fails to meet the high standards we have for non-free use, simply because it is only just an application form. It would be the type of thing that would be in a museum display about the force, but something we just can't support without further discussion about the importance or differencing of the form. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you suggesting in fact that further discussion of the application form in the article would render the file more important in your view? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be further discussion of why the application form is unique (not just because it was specific for the regiment). There might be something that you can discuss from sources, but given the way the form looks, I don't see a singular piece of information that seems out of place for a registration form, and doubt that you'd be able to find this. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fresh proposals

File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg - Following all our discussions I have agreed with Werieth that this file should be deleted. It has been removed from the article.
File:Glenane.jpg - Following discussion a consensus has been reached that the image be removed from the UDR article (which was done last week) and any other pages where it is repeated leaving Glenanne barracks bombing as the only page where it appears.
File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg - I am not in favour of this image but would ask copyright editors to consider its restoration in UDR article as it provides a POV balance. This has been shown to be quite an emotive issue with some editors in the past, and for good reason - Troubles articles need balance.
thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster - Another editor has replaced this with no prior knowledge of the reasons for the file's removal. I have left him an explanation User talk:John and been open with my view that I think the Bloodmoney poster should be included again. He has indicated he may join this discussion. My own views are exactly the same as the ones indicated for Bloodmoney. I think it should be in there for balance.
File:The Yellow Card.jpg - As detailed on the file's own talk page I firmly believe this image passes all qualification for staying. It stands alone now with its own section. The usage of this document and the repercussions arising from it are amongst one of the most contentious issues arising from The Troubles and I would like to see it remain. If you want more explanation in the section Ulster Defence Regiment#The Yellow Card then by all means I will oblige - I have the sources. In this case though it is the actual text of the card which tells the story so I would propose the section be left at its current size and let the image do the work.
File:The Blue Card.jpg - This image has been removed from the article and I support its deletion unless another editor wishes to make use of it on another Troubles related page. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Update

OK, so I want to see if this can be now fully resolved.

File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg – deleted (resolved)
File:Glenane.jpg – removed from UDR (resolved)
File:The Blue Card.jpg; removed and deleted (resolved)
File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg; removed but potentially not resolved;
File:UDR political poster.jpg; included but potentially not resolved;
File:The Yellow Card.jpg; included but potentially not resolved.

I have my own view but I'd prefer to stay neutral. SonofSetanta, Werieth, Masem? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the three unresolved ones would appear to meet NFCC requirements; they're interesting historical pieces but not discussed in any depth beyond that they exist, and thus not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref File:The Yellow Card.jpg. A request for closure of the discussion was made by Quadell on 31st July here. [1]. The discussions on File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and File:UDR political poster.jpg just faded away. As there are no longer any objections to them I suggest you let the hare sit. For the same reason I don't see why File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg shouldn't be restored to the article. Not that I like it, but I've always believed it helped the balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem since we last discussed this the section was reduced to just the Yellow Card and is now totally an explanation of the card and its importance in the conflict. That's why Quadell requested the closure of the discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Would have to agree that all need to be removed, along with File:5 UDR Record Sleeve.jpg which snuck into the article. Werieth (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it just snuck into the article? It was put there by me to illustrate the only recording ever made by Ulster Defence Regiment pipes and drums. For that reason it is notable and it should really also be on the page for 5th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment but I kept its usage minimal. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:33, 23 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.

File:Movic logo.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-admin Closure: Image is on Commons since April 2013 and marked as a text logo, this would be a discussion for Commons. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:22, 13 October 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, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 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.

File:New York Collaborates for Autism Logo.gif

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-admin closure: Consensus is threshold of originality is not met, and therefore the image is PD-textlogo. There is now only one image in the image history and it is currently in use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:28, 13 October 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) 08:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is PD-textlogo to me. There are two images in the history. Are both valid logos? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note the image is not in use. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 15 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.

File:Northwestairlink.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: File is PD-textlogo as TOO is not met. File has been updated accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:01, 15 October 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) 09:00, 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.

File:Smallman Label.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-Admin Closure Image is identified as PD-simple on page. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:35, 14 October 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 concern, this is simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 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.

File:Jack TV 2011.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-tagged as text logo. --Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 14 October 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, this is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 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.

File:Girl From Yesterday Still.gif

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-templated as PD. --Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 14 October 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 is a photo still from a pre 1923 work. So this is public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:39, 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.

File:Great Midwest Conference logo.gif

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-tagged as PD-text logo. --Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 14 October 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, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 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.

File:Bean3.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Referred to WP:OTRS/N for clarification on OTRS permissions. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:38, 13 October 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 has an OTRS permission, so does this only cover the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:OTRS/N instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 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.

File:International Tennis Federation.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 1 October 2013 as it was replaced by File:International Tennis Federation logo.svg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:41, 13 October 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 concern, Is the tennis ball enough to make this original? I'm not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Rapsar (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment This image has been replaced by this SVG version. Therefore the PNG version mentioned here will be speedy deleted on 30 September. Thank you. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:07, 23 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.

File:Inish Times Logo.PNG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's in the United Kingdom, so PD-ineligible-USonly. --Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 14 October 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 might not have been met, Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 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.

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Extant licensing templates on the file are correct. --Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 14 October 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.

Notes claim this is PD in Canada? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is copyrighted in the United States if the author submitted a copyright renewal to the United States Copyright Office. I saw a few renewals for his other books when I checked this some time ago, but I couldn't find this book. Would need a more careful check of the copyright renewal records. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 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.

File:CasinoExterior585.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Extant licensing templates are correct. --Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 14 October 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.

Would it be reasonable to assume this image is contemporary with the building and thus is public domain? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously taken between 1893 and 1896, but when was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Conner, Lynne (2007). Pittsburgh in Stages: Two Hundred Years of Theater. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-8229-4330-3. says "Source unknown", so may be hard to find out, if not impossible. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:42, 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.

File:CemalAzmi.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Extant templating is correct. I was unable to locate the image on the Commons; a link would be helpful next time please. --Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 14 October 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.

Duplicate at Commons, Subject died in 1922, but this image doesn't give a publication date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 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.

File:Cop18 cmp8 logo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Commons version was deleted citing borderline violation of PD-textlogo with the reccomendation that it be kept locally with appropriate fair use rationale. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:06, 14 October 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.

Commons considers this a text logo, but requesting a review here because the globe inclusion makes me wonder about that call being wrong. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 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.

File:Farley Edition of Domesday.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted as F4. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 14 October 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 is a self-made (by the uploader) image of an old book, the uploader originally uploaded this as non-free, but I am skeptical that they actually needed to do that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The book is PD. The photo is unlicensed. Anyone could take another photo of the same book, so this violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 10 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.

File:Debussy Premiere Arabesque melody and chords.mid

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The local copy of this file was deleted as F8 on 12 July 2013. --Diannaa (talk) 16:21, 14 October 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 am requesting a review, Debussy died in 1918, making the original composition PD as of 1988, Is this issue here the specific arrangement? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 10 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.

File:FerruccioNazionale.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Templating has to be left as-is, because we don't know the original publication date. --Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 14 October 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 is a simple news photo, and so falls within the scope of PD-Italy surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only in the public domain in USA if it was published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice or before 1964 without a copyright renewal. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 11 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.

File:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have no evidence that the image is PD in Pakistan, so I have removed that template. --Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 14 October 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.

Claimed as PD-Pakistan as well as non-free, but apparently sourced to UK academic source. Is this an 'official' photo, if so as crown copyright this would have expired surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. British academic institutions use images from multiple sources, so there is no way to tell who took the photo without more information. {{PD-Pakistan}} requires evidence of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 11 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.

File:LoweringLESSToLunarSurface.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is an archive link to the contractor's document. There's no copyright notices. --Diannaa (talk) 16:38, 14 October 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 claimed as having not been published with a notice, but also contains a non-free image tag (because it's apparently not covered by the typical NASA one.), There are some others like this in the 'disputed' category, which I will not nominate separately. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. Was the NASA document published in 1970? If so, then I suggest that we simply tag this with {{wrong license}} until someone has been able to obtain a copy of that NASA document to check for copyright notices. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 11 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.

File:Chris McCandless.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The copy on the Commons has been deleted, and our copy is templated for fair use. --Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 14 October 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.

License Ouvert at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:npd}} on Commons. The user on Commons states that the copyright status is "unclear" and that it is used under a fair use claim in addition to being licensed as "Licence Ouverte". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Small update but it was deleted on commons. — -dainomite 06:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's a non-reproduceable nonfree image of the article's subject that we're using for identification of the subject. Besides the fact that he's dead and thus unphotographable, it shows him in the most significant bit of his life: near the end, when he's out in the wilderness. Meanwhile, the copyright holder is his heir, and that person's identity is unclear — it depends on operation of law, but presumably he was intestate, and would the probate process be governed under Alaska law or under the law of the state of his legal residence? At any rate, it's not the work of a press agency or other entity that's going to derive lots of money from it, so we're not interfering with the copyright holder's right to exploit and profit from the image. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 10 October 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.

File:I-TliCho-flag-new.gif

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kept as fair use. I was unable to locate the image at the Commons, please provide a link in the future. --Diannaa (talk) 16:52, 14 October 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 was treated as free (PD-shape) by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 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.

File:Ukr hckylogo.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image moved to Commons and deleted locally. Discussion should continue there if necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 10:29, 14 October 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.

Considerd UA-exempt at Commons perhaps erronously. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 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.

File:OpenWire graphical editor on Embarcadero Delphi.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Commons version deleted. Image appropriately tagged as fair use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 10:31, 14 October 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 OTRS permission is pending for an identical image on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Wait or actively assess~~ Keep: Hi. Actually, it was I who changed the licensing tag to non-free fair use. You see, Mitov insists that Embarcadero has given him permission to use the screenshot of their software. He says they were very nice about it, they are his business partners and they assured him that he has permission to use it. However, I still do not believe they gave him permission for free use. Embarcadero Delphi is non-free commercial product; its copyright holders will never give permission to use it under a free license like Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. It is uncharacteristic of companies like Embarcadero. At most, I believe they allowed him to freely publish and reproduce the screenshot but I daresay they'd flip if they see a derivative work of Delphi.

We should either wait for Commons OTRS results (which is probably a decline) or ask a person with OTRS permission to check the email sent. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we leave this discussion open and wait until Commons either has deleted Commons:File:OpenWire Editor installed in Delphi XE3.jpg or added an OTRS ticket. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like the image on Commons is deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:34, 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.

File:Seal of Seoul.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Commons deletion discussion closed as Keep; local copy deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 14 October 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.

Commons treat's this logo as free, are Governmental symbols exempt in South Korea? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Seoul.svg has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the copyright apply to the logo or to the SVG? Either way, I think it might fall under PD-shape. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:35, 6 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.

File:Joymati6.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Image on Commons was deleted on 23 July. Local copy is in the queue for F5 deletion on 21 October. --Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 14 October 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.

Commons treats this image as PD-india (based on the 1934 date seemingly) but gives no further information, The source link being geocities is dead. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-India}} requires evidence of pre-1941 publication, but none is given. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joymati6.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 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.

File:EXA-WHITE.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was moved to Commons with OTRS permission. Local copy no longer exists. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:44, 14 October 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 equivalent image on Commons claims to have permission for release under Creative Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 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.

File:Associação Esportiva Araçatuba logo.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image on Commons is PD-simple, does not meet TOO. Local copy kept per editors request. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:43, 14 October 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.

According to Commons, this is below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is too simple, the real question is, is it ineligible for copyright in Brazil, the country of origin? If it is copyrighted in Brazil, it shouldn't be in Commons. That's what you should have said in the deletion discussion. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:09, 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.

File:WKSU-FM logo (new).png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Already moved to Commons as a text logo. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File transferred to Commons by another user. Levdr1lp / talk 14:57, 29 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.

Shake it up images

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: No Consensus; no actual questions about media. Stale discussion. Request from editor on wikibreak. Please bring back up with appropriate questions if needed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:49, 14 October 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.

See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: Specify? --George Ho (talk) 16:46, 23 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.

File:Unpakt logo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Doesn't meet the threshold of originality. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

There is nothing in this media above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Provides identification for the subject of one article. Keep. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's not the issue. It's a simple text-only logo and thus instead of being non-free, likely should be free (and thus kept without a problem). It's too simple to be creative under the concept of "Threshold of Originality" (TOO) to qualify for copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 25 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.

File:ETV-Rasoi-Show-logo.jpeg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Image has since been relicensed as a logo. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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 logo artwork, so unlikely to be a self work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So retag it, and inform the uploader. Next. :) There's ~225 active cases on this page. I don't think we need to bring simple ones like this, yeah? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 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.

File:Canal+ Cinéma logo 2009.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted in favor of Commons version, does not meet TOO. --Jujutacular (talk) 13:54, 14 October 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.

Commons treats this logo as not having met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 27 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.

File:Evangelion retouched.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Unlikely to qualify as a textlogo-- non-free license maintained. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Treated as a textlogo on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it on Commons. It didn't look like a text logo to me. If you disagree, maybe I should have nominated it for discussion rather than speedy deleted it? If so, let me know. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It just consists of text (新世紀 EVANGELION エヴァンゲリオン), but there are quite a few visual effects here, e.g. colours for the characters in the word エヴァンゲリオン, so I'm not fully convinced that the image is OK. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 2 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.

File:TattleTales Logo.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Doesn't meet the threshold of originality; relicensing. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Possibly a PD-textlogo failing WP:TOO? RJaguar3 | u | t 16:59, 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.

File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Likely to be in public domain. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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 a seal of a California Local government agency. Aren't these freely license-able? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Works produced by the US Gov't are public domain but that provision does not apply to state or local gov't under it. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the state. See {{PD-CAGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the normal thing we do with seals of cities in city articles? Hobit (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- They are generally considered like logos and can be used the identifying image for the city. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  - Note that many seals of cities are in the public domain because of age or because they were published without copyright notice at a point when copyright notices were required. This might be difficult to prove, though. Also note that all seals of cities in California and Florida are in the public domain because of local state law. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 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.

File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have tagged the image for F7 spedy deletion. --Diannaa (talk) 17:03, 14 October 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.

Article already has a recent cover in the infobox, thusly use of second cover image, should be supported by commentary in the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and 8 in Mayfair (magazine). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:41, 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.

File:Namte Namte Bengali Movie Poster.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Issue resolved. Image is only in the article one time, no longer a violation of WP:NFCC#10c. ---- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:52, 14 October 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.

Used twice in the article Namte Namte but the FUR is only for one use. Violation of WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed myself. Resolved. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 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.

File:To Live and Die in L.A. album art.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Issue resolved. Image is only used in the appropriate soundtrack article. ---- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:54, 14 October 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.

Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6, WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack in To Live and Die in L.A. (film). Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say remove from the article since the soundtrack has its own article, but I am confused about the image because it is used in both To Live and Die in L.A. (soundtrack) and To Live and Die in L.A. (Wang Chung song). Is this image an album cover and/or a single cover? Either way the image would be at one of those articles and is not needed for the film article since there are links to both articles in the soundtrack section. Aspects (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that we both agree that it shouldn't be in the film article.

I can't tell whether this is an album cover or a single cover. If it is an album cover, then it should only be in To Live and Die in L.A. (soundtrack) but not in To Live and Die in L.A. (Wang Chung song). On the other hand, if it is a single cover, then it should only be in the "song" article and not in the "soundtrack" article. I'm guessing that WP:NFCC#10a tells that we should delete the image entirely as it is unsourced (we don't know which product it's a cover for), but it would in my opinion be better to identify which product it is a cover for. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the image from song article because the cover says "Soundtrack". --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 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.

File:The Legend of Zelda - Oracle of Ages Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance palette difference.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 8 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:21, 14 October 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 was used in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages to illustrate the statement that "the games feature a brighter color palette when played on a Nintendo Game Boy Advance in order to make up for the darkness of the screen", which is followed a citation to a book about the game. Does that use conform to the non-free content criteria? —rybec 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Does that use conform to the non-free content criteria?" I think not. In this case the written explanation does not necessarily need a visual aid to make the article any more comprehensible. Delete. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 20 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.

File:Pottsville2.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 26 September 2013 as Orphaned non-free file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 14 October 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 is a photo of a text based marker, I'm querying if this needs to be under NFCC rules? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

While the text may be unoriginal, the coat of arms on top of it is some original design. So because there's no freedom of panorama in un the US we need to treat this as fair use. On the other hand, the file isn't used at the moment so unless it gets put back into the article we'll have to delete it. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 20 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.

File:ISpacesLogo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on October 13 per discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_September_26#File:ISpacesLogo.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:25, 14 October 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.

(fast-track) This logo does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear case of PD-textlogo. Should be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 20 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.

File:Idio (logo).jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 27 September 2013 as Orphaned non-free file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:26, 14 October 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.

(fast-track) This logo may not meet TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear case of PD-textlogo. Should be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Does this meet British's originality threshold? --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  - Hrm, I missed that fact. While I'd say it is just made up of two different fonts, the stylized part is possibly copyrighted in the UK. If so, we could still host it here as PD-textlogo and PD-USonly. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Oh... the company has uploaded its own logo to Commons with PNG format. But it's listed as "some rights reserved". --George Ho (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
      - But they still need to confirm that CC licence. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 20 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.

File:WasteZeroLogo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been marked as PD-textlogo appropriately and marked for transfer to Commons. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:02, 14 October 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 logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear case of PD-textlogo. Should be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 20 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.

File:Sv logo.PNG

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 3 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 14 October 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 image, redundant to vector image File:Svlogo.svg. Kinu ^t/_c 02:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Imo this is too simple for copyright in the US but may be non-free in the country of origin (UK). So while it could be kept here at Wikipedia with {{PD-USonly}} it is in fact redundant to the SVG version. That said, the SVG file should be relabeled with PD-textlogo and PD-USonly. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 20 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.

File:1. FC Heidenheim logo.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image is on Commons as PD-textlogo. Further discussion, if necessary, should happen there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:33, 14 October 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.

(fast track) This logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is PD-simple. De728631 (talk) 14:32, 20 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.

File:Uefa-youth-league.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Changed to PD-text logo. --Diannaa (talk) 17:15, 14 October 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 logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 23 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.

File:KPIT Technologies New Logo.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image is at Commons at File:KPIT Technologies logo.png as PD-textlogo. ---- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:36, 14 October 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 logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 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.

File:Bershka logo.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 17:16, 14 October 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 logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 23 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.

File:Bharatiya_Janata_Party.svg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 2 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:39, 14 October 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.

Nominated per this | discussion on Election symbol Non free Use. 120.59.3.241 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom (Also here's a case of a party being smart and incorporating that symbol into their official logo, and its available there.) --MASEM (t) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: topic currently in discussion here... Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation --Ne0 (talk) 10:31, 25 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.

File:Meritous screenshot.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 13 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:42, 14 October 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.

Several things to discuss about this file:

There is already an image on Commons of Meritous (File:Meritous-automap.png)
There is a copy of GPLv3 in the archive; the website says that version 1.2 of the game "GPLed the source." There is no indication as to whether or not the data files are under GPLv3, although Debian offers the package ([2]), and the package's copyright appears to treat the entire application as GPL ([3])
There is no indication this particular screenshot by Asceai is freely-licensed. If the entire game is, in fact, under GPLv3, a free image could be made by a Wikipedian to replace this image (WP:NFCC#1). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:36, 25 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.

File:UC3-Gameplay.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 8 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:43, 14 October 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.

We should be able to find a free license program screenshot for 3D_rendering#Real-time. The rationale is actually for an article on the game and the file isn't used in that article. I just found File:Irrlicht screenshot01.png that may work. I don't know much about the process though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you know a free image exists, just replace it (and update the caption and explain that its by NFCC#1). That one you have may work, I found File:Xonotic_Game_Play_-_Xoylent_(image_3).jpg this might be better (more modern), but you can browser the Commons category "Category:Video_game_screenshots" to see if there are better ones. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 25 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.

File:EntenteSSG.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image at Commons under same name is listed as PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:45, 14 October 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.

Image is free at Commons, and looks simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo, delete and replace with commons version. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 30 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.

File:Edith Soterius von Sachsenheim (1998 poster).jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image is at Commons with OTRS permission. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:47, 14 October 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.

Free at Commons with an OTRS slip listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have an OTRS at commons, delete and replace with that. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 30 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.

LovePlus

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Both images were deleted on 8 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. Only one game cover remains in article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:52, 14 October 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.

More than one game cover is used. Shall there be only one video game cover? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. The covers are thematically similar and thus the added covers do not aid in further understanding of the branding/marketing. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed two covers. Will wait for a while to see them deleted, like a week or two. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 30 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.

Super Game Boy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: All three screenshot images were deleted on 12 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. Article contains no further screenshots. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:49, 14 October 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.

Screenshots are used in this article. Do they meet fair use guidelines? George Ho (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The uses of File:SuperGameBoyMenu.png, File:SuperGameBoy2Menu.png and File:DragonWarriorMonstersBorder.png in Super Game Boy are all unnecessary. They provide nothing that cannot easily described by text and it would not harm a readers understanding of the article if none of those images were present in the article. Therefore all of them violate WP:NFCC#8 in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

All three removed. Wait until deletion. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 1 October 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.

File:Wbnx CW TV.PNG

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image is now on Commons as File:WBNX CW TV.PNG listed as PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:56, 14 October 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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 04:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 9 October 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.

File:Philadelphia 76ers 09 partial logo.gif

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted on 12 October 2013 as Orphaned non-free use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:57, 14 October 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.

Think this is {{PD-textlogo}} LGA _talk^edits 06:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The basketball shape likely puts it over. If it was just the text even with the ring of stars, that would be okay, but the ball shape is arguably creative enough. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 9 October 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.

File:Hudson logo.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Image is on Commons with name name as PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:59, 14 October 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.

Apparently free on Commons, This doesn't look more advanced than text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, pd-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 12 October 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.

File:Debord SocietyofSpectacle.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Removed from non-book articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 13 October 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 used in more than one article. Is fair use in a few articles valid? Right now, I provided the title page of the very first French edition. George Ho (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The use in the article on the book is fine since it's the cover, but the other uses are an absolute no-no. Just because it is a key book on the subject doesn't mean it has to be illustrated in articles about those subjects, since the book can be linked and called out by name. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 12 October 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.

File:Cardenio.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Now at WP:FFD. --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 13 October 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.

In The History of Cardenio. The NFUR indicates that the purpose is "To illustrate the point discussed in the article, that The Second Maiden's Tragedy, despite its disputed authorship, has been presented theatrically as Cardenio, attributed to William Shakespeare". This is a point that is entirely suitable for presentation in text form, so this image fails WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming too extraneous and redundant. Simply nominate this image for deletion if you feel it this way. And even someone else's opinion is not enough consensus in this case. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? This is supposed to be a deletion discussion. And the case for deletion, as put forward by RJaguar3, is simple, concisely explained and compelling. In fact, it's a slam-dunk case. I'm removing the image from the article where it was still used, and earmarking it for speedy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, hell. If it's not a review as intended, then what is this besides a prelude to deletion discussion? --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, NFCR is not FFD. If the only use of the image is clearly out of line, that's a reason to take to FFD. NFCR should be used for when one of several uses of an image are in question, or other broader issues that aren't related to deletion. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I looked at the NFURs and thought that the image was still used in Megan Henning, a usage that I did not feel the need to have reviewed. I mistakenly did not check the actual list of pages using the file, which would have indicated the image was only being used in The History of Cardenio; had I realized this, I would have just gone to FFD. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'll help you close this review, while you nominate it for deletion. Sounds good? George Ho (talk) 16:40, 13 October 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.

దస్త్రం:Actor srihari.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Duplicate of te:వికీపీడియా:Non-free content review#దస్త్రం:Actor srihari.jpg. It is better if discussion takes place there instead of here. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 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.

ఫెయిర్ యూజ్ కారణాలు పేర్కొనలేదు. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:47, 14 October 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.

File:Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library Logo.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Withdrawn as uploader has adjusted file license. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:02, 15 October 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.

PD-text logo? or is building too complex? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:45, 15 October 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.