This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
1
Edit the file page.
Add {{Ffd|log=2024 December 23}} to the file page.
2
Create its FfD subsection.
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2024 December 23}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 December 23}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This not a logo for the group. It is a collage of the logos of the constituent members. So it does not identify the group since the group itself has no logo. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a generic logo of the general event, as the inclusion of sponsors in the logo mean that the logo will potentially change season on season. A logo without all the sponsors would also probably be below threshold of originality, and so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this a logo specific to the 2024 season, we cannot simply presume that because sponsor logos are included on the logo (as the sponsors may or may not be the same in future events). As such, fails WP:GETTY point 17 (generic logo being used in specific season article) and also WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all shows that it is a logo used in the 2024 season, not that it is a logo specifically and only for the 2024 season, which is what is required to meet all WP:NFCC. 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is that the song's audio sample is notable based off it's use in the article because the song itself is highly well known and notable but I understand how that can come off as a bias. This0k (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do your changes improve the sample's compliance to this criterion? From what I see, you favor the sample as some representation of the whole album. Unfortunately, the sample is of just one song/track. How are the text and the cover art insufficient without this sample? George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).
It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Plots subsection primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. While the Development section briefly mentions the game's inspiration from real-life buildings and statues, using this specific non-free screenshot is not essential to convey this information. The screenshot's current placement in the Plots section is inappropriate and does not directly contribute to the understanding of the game's narrative. Therefore, the non-free screenshot should be removed. Wcam (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Launchballer00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep About whether "Unlock It" doesn't have a cover is something I disagree for the following reasons:
It's true that in Spotify, all the singles Pop 2 show the album's cover and don't have an artwork of its own. However, Spotify it's not the only source that can determine if a single has its own cover or not.
The cover I uploaded comes from a post of Charli's official Tumblr account. Kim Petras also uploaded the same image to her Facebook.
It was designed by the same person who did the cover for "Out of My Head". From what it seems, both covers are from a series of pictures created to promote the mixtape. They follow the same style so its safe to assume that Charli hired a person to do them and its not fanmade content.
Regardless of whether a song doesn't have a cover on streaming platforms, other articles have used promotionalimages for singles.
Strong Keep As I am not sure since it's been done on multiple song articles, can a picture that is promoted by the artist be used ?Because if so strong keep as Kim Petras had posted it to her Facebook years ago. If this however is not eligible for fair use on song articles then delete. Edit: Actually strong keep. It serves it's purpose, showing who the song is featuring with the main singer listed as well, not just any photo nor is it fanmade. This0k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit03:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I set the wrong tag. The problem is not with the licensing of the image, but with the awards. They take up too much space on the photo and can't be in {{de minimis}}. Either need to prove that they are not copyrighted or crop the photo. — Ирука1300:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It only makes sense to crop the photo if it's the "c:COM:Own workOwn work" of the uploader; if it was taken by someone other than the uploader, it would be need to be treated as non-free content until the WP:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo can be verified in some way. The EXIF data for the file looks like it could be the original work of the uploader and a Google image search doesn't show the image being used anywhere other than Wikipedia; so, perhaps it's reasonable to assume it's the uploader's "own work". VRT verification would further to help clarify that but it's probably not necessary. However, I will note that another file of the same person uploader by this uploader as File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 21#File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg and there are quite a number of file licesing related notifications posted on the uploader's user talk page, which is a concern. Since the uploader hasn't edited since 2019, asking them to verify this is their own work is likely not going to get a response; so, it comes down to whether the consensus feel this is the uploader's "own work". If the consensus is that it is, the file can be cropped (perhaps via WP:GL/P) and the older version showing the awards hidden; if, on the other hand, the consensus is that it's not the uploader's own work, the file can't be kept and should be deleted per WP:F9 or WP:F11 since there's no way for it to be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this logo didn't qualify for fair-use rationale, because when we compare the 2025 CWC logo with other CWC logos, this logo is very simple and IMO, this logo isn't eligible for copyright protection in the US (the host country). Should this logo be removed from Wikipedia and move this logo to Wikimedia Commons instead? 103.111.100.82 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to PD-logo: Given that the tournament associated with this logo is being hosted in the US per 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and that it seems (at least to me) to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US, this probably doesn't need to be treated as non-free and can be hosted on Commons instead. While it's true that Commons doesn't accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR, it has no problem hosting logos considered to be too simple to eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of the US and of the country of first publication as explained in c:COM:CB#Trademarks. Given that the US seems to be the country of first publication here, there's also no need to treat this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia and it should be fine for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transferred to Commons Assuming that there's single color (non-gradient and monochrome) versions of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup logo, this logo didn't qualify for "fair-use rationale" because it is far too simple and ineligible for copyright in the US, very different than previous CWC logos. (Remember, the US had higher threshold of originality rules than many common law countries like the UK). 2404:8000:1037:469:2919:6DDC:54F0:B88 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, about that. Because I already posted that picture from partially-found or lost clip found on YouTube as video frame into the article of Filipino animation as free use or public domain. I believe none of them restoring that series Ang Panday and likely not having licenses for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Filipino animation § 1986–1995: EDSA Clearly demonstrates why this is important and has no non-free substitute: Ang Panday (1986) was the first Filipino animated TV series. That represents a landmark in any animation industry, and this is showing the title card. I see nothing wrong with its importance here as an illustrative aid, and no non-free substitute is likely to exist under US law until 2086. This is a very minimal usage with what I would argue is high value in the article and zero substitutability. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. It's removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic of Philippine animation. It's importance can be expressed with the text in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claimed purpose of use in article is merely that this is used For an example of Filipino animation in television. But there is presently no sourced commentary on that logo; the title slide is merely decorative in nature. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – file:Golden Lion (prize).jpg, cited by Iruka13 as an acceptable substitute, is extraordinarily washed-out and barely even shows that there's text whatsoever on the plaque. This is frankly an abysmal representation of the item in question. The previous 2020 discussion got this correct; the WP:FREER photo is too poor of a source to be considered a near enough equivalent: the color is way off, but more importantly, with better-than-20/20 eyesight, I can just barely make out by zooming in that the plaque even contains text – one of the two integral components of the statue, the other being the lion itself. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FREER. The image may not be as nice as the one currently in the infobox, but is is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. -- Whpq (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FREER. While the image might be aesthetically better than the one in the history section, that image is suitable for identifying this. The guideline is quite explicit about this case: a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work. We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art. There is no wiggle room here based on aesthetic qualifications when the freer image is sufficient for identification of the award in question, which is the claimed purpose of use. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it very clearly doesn't. If you refer to the avis legal handily already linked at the file page, it says reuse is permitted for free and without permission as long as the reuse does not change the meaning or suggest it is officially endorsed by the parliament, and as long as there is attribution. That's attribution-only, and the same legal text that was used to create the Catalan government attribution template (Template:attribution-gencat on Commons). Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit.
"1. that its meaning is not altered or distorted."
meaning is the operative word. Again, this is the exact same legal text used in the longstanding Commons license specific to this organisation. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that Google Translate is lying (which for some reason you didn't refute(or maybe my English didn't let me understand it)). Let's assume that the texts are identical (one has "CC0", the other doesn't). Only the sites are different. The Commons template is not applicable in this case. — Ирука1307:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You seem to acknowledge the legal text in both cases is the same but then suggest that it doesn’t apply? Just because you apparently don’t know the difference between changing something’s content and changing its meaning and now don’t want to drop it. If you’re admitting that you understand neither Catalan or English, I also don’t know why you’re so boldly insistent that your interpretation is correct when, once again, Wikimedia Commons has a whole thing for works created by the Catalan government. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please translate this sentence into English: "que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit". — Ирука1317:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But let's be clear, the translation is not the issue. Your ability to interpret it is, as I already highlighted that the important part is meaning and you just ignored me. The text doesn't refer to altering the content (ND) at all. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True.
I didn't read until the words Creative Commons. That's also true. I wouldn't even bring it up for discussion.
If the problem is that the legal text doesn't specify an English Wikipedia-approved CC tag, then the real problem is that English Wikipedia doesn't have the Catalan government Commons license. And the solution is that the file should be moved to Commons so that it can be properly license tagged there.
The Catalan government has always been descriptive, not prescriptive, of its CC licenses with the Commons agreement being "CC0 with attribution" (something that isn't in the regular licenses, hence Wikimedia Commons has a separate template). Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have nothing against you moving this and similar files to Commons before the end of this discussion. Only there might be someone like me who will notice the difference in the site addresses and the difference in the text. And everything will repeat itself. — Ирука1308:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'd love to, but you can't move files that are at XfD. Close this so we can all get on.
And don't worry, it won't repeat, because (the number of times I've had to repeat this, how on earth are you still claiming otherwise) there aren't any differences in the legal text and the applicable template. I.e. there's no file problem that others would look for, you have been inventing problems. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, yes.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding Move to Commons, you can move it there yourself. WP:FFD#Instructions for discussion participation — Ирука1300:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says Aquestes limitacions es poden establir mitjançant l’ús de llicències Creative Commons. I assume that this means that the file is available under a Creative Commons licence, although it doesn't say which one. As most Creative Commons licences require you to refer to the licence in one way or another, it is not possible to use files under Creative Commons licences if the licence type and version number are unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:attribution-gencat on Commons would apply, given the publisher and having (for the final time) the same legal text as was used for that long before me. There was an mp3 issue on Commons at the time I uploaded it, or it would've gone there. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
Criterion 9, because the file is used in non-article pages, including disambiguation pages, and non-article namespaces either other than or in addition to articles and article namespaces. — Ирука1323:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is being used in a WP:Set index article of these two characters as a visual means and provides the contextual significance of the subjects. It is not an actual DAB page, as explained at WP:SETNOTDAB, and that ought to fall in line with the exceptions of the criteria. I see no reason to warrant a deletion. It was also just re-uploaded with a higher-quality version before the nom erroneously removed it from the SIA Batman and Superman where it is most relevant, which the nom did not really provide any proper explanation for in their odd edit summary. This nomination is over a misunderstanding of a technicality and lacks sufficient rationale or merit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, you're correct. That image being in this article doesn't violate any rules that I know of.
..I brought the community's attention to a situation that I think violates NFCC - "my job here is done". — Ирука1301:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs to be explicitly stated that SIAs are an exception because they are not DABs (which it seems is necessary), then that is something that ought to be handled at the Criterion page, not by trying to make an example out of one lone file. Since this file does not violate any rules, there is no reason it ought to be deleted or discussed in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trailblazer101's rationale, the reader's understanding of the subjects is increased from the file's existence, and also, set index considerations hold true. BarntToust17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука1316:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It provides a significant understanding by showcasing who both of these characters are directly in the SIA without having our readers go to another article to figure that out. There is nothing wrong with how this image is being used in this SIA. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an SIA, I consider it to still be a work in progress to cover the topic of these two characters as a duo, similarly to fellow comics SIA Hawkeye (comics), as opposed to simply being a list of relevant links with not much meaningful content. I would still argue that my above rationale stands for that regard, I have just been precluded from making such changes due to other commitments. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Converting the file's licensing to non-free and adding non-free use rationale might take care of the FOP issue cited above by Stefan2, but it creates different issues that now need to be sorted out. A non-free image of this sculpture would certainly be justifiable in a stand-alone article about the work itself if such an article existed; however, since there's no such article, the next best option is perhaps in the article about the artist who created it as an example of their creative work. So, the file's non-free use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir is probably OK as an example of her work. The other uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall) are not so clear and just adding a non-free use rationale for them doesn't make their uses valid. Erling Blöndal Bengtsson died in 2013, which means a non-free image of him can possibly be used; however, there are probably much better ones to chose from that this particular image, and there might even be a free or public domain image of him that could be used instead. The other use in the article about the Harp concert hall doesn't, at least in my opinion, meet WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS or even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since a link from that article to the article about Pálsdóttir seem fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep in only Erling Blöndal Bengtsson or delete. Possibly, a photo of Bengtsson himself would be nice, but I think a sculptor of him is also nice. I don't see enough critical commentary to justify usages in other articles; the whole image itself (of the sculpture) not contextually significant to the sculptor or the hall that holds the sculpture there.George Ho (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC); struck, 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use in the article about Ólöf Pálsdóttir could be justified as an example of her work, assuming there are no freely licensed of public domain images of her work that can't be found to use instead; however, I disagree that this would be OK to use in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson, and it would be much preferable to use a non-free photo of him instead if a freely licensed or public domain image can't be found. The sculpture is nice perhaps, but nice is an insufficient justification for the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain about Ólöf Pálsdóttir: she's already a sculptor when you identify her. Is being a "sculptor" insufficient to readers? Sure, a photo of her work can help readers understand her skills as a sculptor, but the main issue is whether the biographical article about her really needs the photo and whether readers can already understand her without an image of her work like this. Well, I've seen other cases where a photo of a work is placed in an article about an artist or a sculptor or a painter or... Well, this doesn't mean this is no exception, right? Meanwhile, maybe the Bengtsson article doesn't need the sculptor image after all? I can't find ways to counter your argument, so... well, I struck out my suggestion then. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Icelandic copyright law treats buildings and outdoor sculptures the same. Both can have a picture if said picture is not used for commercial purposes. If the template does not fit because of US laws then it just needs an Iceland specific template (come to think of it the French have the same basic copyright rule, maybe join them in one template?). The template is not a valid deletion reason. Snævar (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an Icelandic Wikipedia and this file is uploaded locally there, then perhaps an Icelandic specific template could be made to work. However, since the servers for English Wikipedia are located in the US, English Wikipedia goes by US copyright law. This means c:COM:FOP US matters here and there's no freedom of panorama for 3D works publicly displayed in the US. So, the sculpture imagery needs to be treated as non-free for any photo of it to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is a non-free photo. I guess what I am saying is that "Template:Non-free 3D art" is sufficent for the image. It's use is allowed per US laws in article 107 (fair use doctrine). Then due to the Berne Convention and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy the local laws matter too - which in this case is Iceland. In Iceland, the use is allowed as an non-free photo based on article 16 of the Icelandic copyright act - it says that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes (c:COM:FOP Iceland) and article 14, which is similar but more restrictive than article 107 in the US, allows use for criticism purposes. Snævar (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free content needs to meet Wikipedia' non-free content use policy. Non-free content needs to have an acceptable non-free copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation. Changing the file's license to {{Non-free 3D art}} is fine for the copyright license part, but adding a non-free copyright license in and of itself doesn't make a file automatically policy compliant. The non-free use rationale part of equation also needs to be valid as explained in WP:NFCCE, and "valid" in this content means the use meets all ten of the criteria listed here. I think that could be possible for the file's use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir, but not really possible for the uses in Erling Blöndal Bengtsson and Harpa (concert hall). So, none of the discussion related to the non-free use of the file has really anything to do with Iceland's FOP. What matters is whether the consensus established here is that there's at least one way to currently use the file in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If there is, the file can be kept; if there isn't the file will end up deleted per WP:NFCC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#10c requires that the FUR must be relevant to the use, but none of the FURs seem relevant to the use of the picture.
The use in Ólöf Pálsdóttir looks fine. Usually we allow a small number of non-free pictures of works by an artist or sculptor if no free pictures exist.
Erling Blöndal Bengtsson is dead. If no free pictures exist, we often allow a non-free picture. However, are we certain that there is no free picture? He lived for a long time in Denmark, and there is {{PD-Denmark50}} which provides a short copyright term for many photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Danish photo may still be copyrightable outside Denmark, even when fifty years passed after author's lifetime, if the photo was still copyrighted in 1996. George Ho (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Denmark, the copyright to a photo expires 50 years after it was taken (not 50 years after the death of the photographer), or 25 years after it was taken if taken before 1970. Photos taken before 1970 and first published in Denmark are ineligible for URAA restoration, but may have a subsisting copyright. Presumably, most pre-1970 Danish photos are in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted sculpture, no Creative Commons licensing permission from the designer or his heirs. Not an architecture so not eligible for {{FoP-USonly}}. Not eligible for Wikimedia Commons because there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Not eligible for fair use tagging as there is no article about this unfamous monument itself. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two non free image book covers that are reasonably similar, and so violate WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free images, as well as WP:NFCC#8- this secondary image does not significantly enhance the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the rationale here. Tolkien's own artwork showing the two towers of The Two Towers as Orthanc and Minas Morgul definitely significantly enhances the article (and the WP:Non-free use rationale at File:Tolkien's design for The Two Towers cover.jpg spells this out rather clearly: The image shows the two towers as Minas Morgul and Orthanc, agreeing with Tolkien's note at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, but conflicting with other statements that he made. The illustration shows his design and his intention in 1954, and illuminates the discussion in the article.), and inherently cannot be replaced by any alternative. The difference between the two book covers is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with TompaDompa. The image is remarkably central to the article, not least because it directly expresses Tolkien's intention for the book via his design for its cover. This is extensively discussed and fully cited in the article, and I explained the rationale clearly and in full in the file's Non-free use rationale. It should certainly be kept as its loss would seriously damage the article, indeed a sizeable part of it would make no sense without it. As for "similarity" between the two covers, they share precisely nothing graphical, only the wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not discussed extensively in the article, it has 3 sentences about it. And none of this addresses WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items, so we should not have both non-free covers listed. If this is the more important of the 2 images, then this should be the infobox and the other one deleted- but keeping both covers is a violation of NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that completely misses the point that TompaDompa and I have made. The discussion is already substantial, covering a lot in a small space (including both the main text and two captions, not to mention the careful graphical explanation that accompanies these) and it has several key points to make, intimately involving the cover image. The article devotes a whole chapter, a top-level section, to the question of the meaning of the volume's title. As the article states, the division of the novel into three volumes was not Tolkien's decision (he wrote six 'books'), but he took the question of the title very seriously, as the images and the citations demonstrate. As the chapter illustrates and describes with an infographic map and the cover design, Tolkien, having rejected the idea of leaving the title ambiguous, as he did with many other things in the novel, initially considered four towers as individual candidates for "The Two Towers" named in the volume's title, and three pairs selected from those four towers as candidates to be "The Two". These include Saruman's Orthanc and Sauron's Barad-dûr, implying that the two towers stand for the two chief adversaries; Orthanc and Cirith Ungol, implying that the two towers stand for obstacles along the separate routes of different subgroups of the Company of the Ring; and Barad-dûr and Minas Tirith, implying that the two towers stand for the opposed realms of Mordor and Gondor, or if you wish the Dark Lord and the true King. However, as the infographic, its caption, and the caption for the cover design make clear, Tolkien eventually selected a fourth pair, Orthanc and the Nazgûl's Minas Morgul. That somewhat surprising choice points to the fallen White Wizard Saruman, and the fallen Witch-King of Angmar who has become the Lord of the Nazgûl. The caption to the cover design explains that Tolkien has shown a kind of opposition between these, one white with the rising moon, explained in the text as an allusion to its original name Minas Ithil, Tower of the Rising Moon, one black with the white hand of Saruman the White. It's a matter of judgement how much of this should be spelt out in the article, but it is certain that Tolkien considered the oppositions, and readers of the article definitely need to see Tolkien's own image to experience the shock of the surprising final choice for themselves, and thereby grasp the nature of the decision that Tolkien made.
NFCC#3 merely asks for the number of non-free items to be minimal, it does not say how many that is, and not to use two items when one would do. In this case, the infobox image shows the cover that was eventually chosen, ignoring Tolkien's wishes and all his careful deliberation about the meaning of "The Two Towers". The one in the "Meaning of title" chapter specifically illustrates the brief but actually rather complex and technical discussion (per my explanation above) of Tolkien's choice of cover and his design for it, which would be totally lamed by the absence of the cover design itself. The infobox image contributes precisely nothing to that discussion, as should be clear to anybody who has read the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make matters crystal clear, I've extended the chapter with a table listing the towers that Tolkien considered for the title roles, and some text explaining a little more of his thoughts in the letters mentioned, with brief quotations. For the numerically-minded, there are now 6 sentences of main text, 7 sentences of 'Notes' in the table, and 3 sentences in the relevant image captions. Together these add up to some 500 words, which is certainly "substantial" coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The uploader claims that this is his own photo. However, this photo was online long before it appeared on WP [8]. The image should be removed as a copyvio that violates point 1 WP:NFCC. — Ирука1319:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Did you try get in touch with the uploader and ask them for proof it is their file? They claimed to have taken if far before that website. I don't know to delete it as the link is for Sarajevo Photography Festival, and they may have just been apart of it. I suggest getting in touch with them via talk page. This0k (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This will probably get closed as delete in a week unless someone takes the initiative to contact the uploader themselves - the burden of proof is on those favoring retention. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery *it has begun...03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Unnecessary non-free image that solely exists for a decorative purpose, rather than illustrating something that has substantial critical commentary. Furthermore, there is already an image of the character in the form of the gameplay screenshot, so the argument of the image existing to allow for identification of the character is invalid. Fails WP:NFCC. I've tried to remove it several times already, but I figured I should take it here before it turns into an edit war. λNegativeMP116:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I uploaded both, I can safely say that the screenshot is definitely the better choice to use; especially given that I chose one that identifies the same character at a size reasonable enough that he is still recognizable. The game setting should also be documented. I am amazed how the game and the character have went unidentified on the game's article on this site for so long when they very much should be. Delete the promo art of Baldi, keep the screenshot of the game
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
We have several free use photos of him, so the historical person rationale is failed for NFCC. However, this photo is in the time period range where it might be PD depending on how/when it was published. Does anyone know the date of this photo's creation or publication? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image is posted to the section of the Big Mac article talking about the "Two all-beef patties" jingle. The button in the image is an example of how McDonald's used the lyrics: it was the button worn by staff when they served customers during the jingle's first use. As such, I believe it does qualify for inclusion -- moreover, it is fair use of the copyrighted image. Christopher Rath (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An unexplained change of license has been made (@Zscout370:). In fact, neither the publication date nor even the production date of the photograph are known. The author is also unknown. It is impossible to confirm {{PD-Poland}}. As non-free it probably can't be used either. — Ирука1309:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file name and FUR say that it is a banner. The license says that it is a logo. And that it serves as a primary means of identification. The article says that it is a wordmark. What is it and why is it needed? — Ирука1312:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Since the visual design of box set in the article is not described in terms of reliable sources, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). In addition, this three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. — Ирука1302:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Instagram post is not sufficient to establish artwork as official album cover. The large size of this upload is a violation of the non-free rationale of minimal usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). Also, I did not find any information that the photo was published under a free license (WP:FREER 3D). — Ирука1301:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the "Contextual Significance" clause at WP:NFCCP. The file doesn't serve a compelling purpose for its inclusion other than to illustrate the mere fact that the subject graduated from school. Another free cropped image has already been provided, deeming this file unnecessary; nothing of encyclopedic value would be lost if this non-free file is removed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука1300:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.
Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.
The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.
Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.
Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===December 23===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Comment: It only makes sense to crop the photo if it's the "c:COM:Own workOwn work" of the uploader; if it was taken by someone other than the uploader, it would be need to be treated as non-free content until the WP:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo can be verified in some way. The EXIF data for the file looks like it could be the original work of the uploader and a Google image search doesn't show the image being used anywhere other than Wikipedia; so, perhaps it's reasonable to assume it's the uploader's "own work". VRT verification would further to help clarify that but it's probably not necessary. However, I will note that another file of the same person uploader by this uploader as File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 21#File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg and there are quite a number of file licesing related notifications posted on the uploader's user talk page, which is a concern. Since the uploader hasn't edited since 2019, asking them to verify this is their own work is likely not going to get a response; so, it comes down to whether the consensus feel this is the uploader's "own work". If the consensus is that it is, the file can be cropped (perhaps via WP:GL/P) and the older version showing the awards hidden; if, on the other hand, the consensus is that it's not the uploader's own work, the file can't be kept and should be deleted per WP:F9 or WP:F11 since there's no way for it to be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+12%23File%3ANepal+Premier+League%282024%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+November+27%23File%3AThe+Musician+%28Erling+Bl%C3%B6ndal+Bengtsson%29+by+%C3%93l%C3%B6f+P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_by_%C3%93l%C3%B6f_P%C3%A1lsd%C3%B3ttir.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Ólöf_Pálsdóttir.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+16%23File%3AJordan+Wharf%2C+Guimaras+mango+monument+%28Jordan%2C+Guimaras%26%2359%3B+01-25-2023%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+December+21%23File%3AWHAM+%28Who+Hard+as+Me%29+-+Lil+Baby.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png&action=history){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
_-_Lil_Baby.png){kind=link}
