Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 22

< November 21	November 23 >

November 22[edit]

File:Saf Patch.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in Special Action Force. File has a non-free use rationale, but fails WP:NFCC#1 since it is essentially the same as the freely licensed File:Special Action Force Seal.svg used in the same article. Moreover, a non-free equivalent could be created using the freely licensed File:SAF Badge.png which is also used in the same article. There's no need for a non-free file when two freely licensed files exist which provide the same encyclopedic information, so the non-free version should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Flag of The President Of The Philippines 1948-1981.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files whose only usage is in Flag of the President of the Philippines# Historical Uses. Usage in gallery problematic per WP:NFG, but removing the files makes them orphans which means that it will likely be deleted per WP:F5, so I am wondering if a valid non-free use rationale can be written for this particular usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marchjuly, are you aware of the copyright problem? Commons has {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, but Wikipedia disagrees with Commons and calls the corresponding template {{Non-free Philippines government}}. That is, these files are only considered to be 'non-free' on Wikipedia but not on Commons. I'm not sure how to handle files like this, and both templates have survived deletion discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the background info Stefan2. No, I wasn't aware that Commons and Wikipedia treat these differently. How do you think the other two flag images used in the article should be handled? File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.svg is from Commons and File:Flag of The President Of The Philippines (1946).png has a non-free use rationale/pd-license? The latter has also been tagged for a move to Commons. Do you think all of these flag images should be strictly non-free per "Non-free Philippines government"? If so, then it seems that all four flag images being used in the gallery have WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure how to best handle files which are treated as free on Commons but as unfree on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be whether this is a copyright-based restriction or not. Commons tends to be more lenient with non-copyright restrictions and the deletion discussions have assumed that the restriction is not a copyright based one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. How do you think should we threat these then? Do we treat them as non-free since this is English Wikipedia and that's how they are currently listed? Does this usage comply with the NFCC? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is part of a much bigger problem which needs a solution. For example, how do we treat files on Commons which have been tagged with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}? Are we to treat those files as 'unfree' on Wikipedia? Maybe better to discuss this at WT:NFC... --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this will need a discussion at WP:NFC or WP:VPP. By the way, the law in question is here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Independence Missouri, New Flag 2014.jpeg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free flag image used in Flags of cities of the United States; Each usage fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG since the article is just essentially one large gallery of flags without any sourced critical discussion at all. The article is the files only usage, so removing them will make them orphans and lead to their eventual deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third one strikes me as not original enough to be copyrightable. With WP:NFCC#8 for the others though I must wonder if the non-free images on an article about images that strives to be comprehensible can meet that criterium; it seems to me that the lack of the non-frees would significantly degrade the understanding on the topic and thus the images could meet the NFCC#8 criterium. I am inclined to let NFG issues slide since the article seems to be mostly contain free images, or so it seems to me. Not sure if that is strictly correct under policy - I'll watch this discussion and see what happens.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether Flags of cities of the United States is striving to be comprehensive is a debatable since it only list cities from 43 of the 50 US states (I hope I didn't miscount) and then only certain cities from each state. The section on Missouri where these three images are displayed shows 10 flags, and I'm pretty sure there are way more than 10 cities in the entire state. Most of the flag images seem to be used in individual city articles, individual flag articles or both. These, however, are not being used in their respective city articles of Independence, Missouri, Grandview, Missouri or Lee's Summit, Missouri and they have no flag articles. I am not sure why that's the case, but if these are actually official city flags, it would make much more sense to use them in the city articles than a list article, wouldn't it? Since there are some states in the article with only one flag shown, I'm not sure how removing three non-free ones from a state which will have seven free images remaining is going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding that cities of the United States have official flags. If these are not PD, then removing them will make them orphans, unless new homes are found for them. Can valid non-free usage rationales be written for usage in the individual city articles? If they can then the images could be linked to in the "Flags" article like what is being done for Flags of cities of the United States#Kentucky and a few other of the states. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I am pretty sure (after reading the NFCC policy) that non-frees are not limited to just one article. I am not sure if the completeness of the list matters much. Incidentally, I'd say that the images are better placed in the list article than the city articles, since the images are the whole point of the list while in the city articles they'd be more decorative than anything.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I wasn't trying to say that non-free usage is limited to only a "single" article, so my bad if I gave that impression; However, I disagree with you about the decorative usage being in the individual city article. I think it's fair to say that the official flag of the city is considered to be a primary means of identifying said city, so using it in the infobox seems to satisfy NFCC#8, at least it does to me. It's also possible that the flag be the subject of sourced discussion within the article which means that using it outside of the infobox may be OK. I'm not sure if the same can be said for an article that is simply a list/table displaying various flags like in this case. I understand that seeing the flags is the whole point of the article, but I don't think that type of usage provides the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8. It seems mainly decorative to me, but the consensus may be that it is not. Just for reference, other non-free flags were linked to in the article with this edit by SiBr4 or removed for NFCC reasons like here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and here by Stefan2. If the consensus is that such non-free usage is acceptable for this article, then these could all be re-added if they are provided with appropriate non-free use rationales. It might even be possible to justify the non-free usage for File:City of Janesville Flag.png which was removed as a copyvio here by Cryptic or the three or four other ones deleted from Commons as copyvios. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  See, the issue I have with using flags in city infoboxes is that to my knowledge cities are generally not identified by their flags. I do think on an article about the flags they'd meet NFCC#8 (an article about particular images is far less understandable if it lacks the images, which also have contextual significance in such an article) but this is my opinion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif is below the threshold of originality. Does the town use that flag in the first place? A reverse Google search only found this page. If this is a real flag, then I'd expect to find thousands of pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched for and found the flag here. Looks like it's the official flag.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just curious ... does File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright? To me, this just looks like rectangles and letters. The only ounce of originality I see in this is the location of the rectangles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: File:Flag of Lees Summit, Missouri.gif has be change from non-free to "PD-logo" so the NFCC no longer apply to its usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wikipedia app search.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contains non-free images. Is incorrectly tagged and does not attribute images used. Although in principle someone could clean up all the licensing and attribution, the non-free components make this a no-no. I don't think they are de minimis because they form an essential part of the functionality of the depicted app. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's only used in a policy discussion and not articles so there can be no fair-use. The uploader (@TheMagikCow:) should edit out the film and musical images if they want to continue using this file. All other images should be attributed (in case they are licensed BY) because this file is a derivative of them. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Improperly licensed, as it contains non-free content. Can't be used outside of mainspace, but not useable for mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete File:Titanic poster.jpg is obviously non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a file tagged as free that includes non-free images that are not critical to the context which the image is placed (and also fails WP:NFCC#9 as a non-free file due to being used in only non-article pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure on whether de minimis would apply here; the copyrighted elements are more incidental than the main point (compare commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg for something similar). However, the screenshot isn't probably needed for long so playing safe doesn't harm here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two different implementations of de minimis in law. Both implementations exist in Danish law, for different purposes:

Under Article 24 of the Danish copyright law, artworks which are permanently installed in a public place may be depicted if the artwork is not the main subject of the picture. There was a case where a court ruled that a collage wasn't infringing the copyright of a sculpture because the collage didn't have any 'main subject'.
Under Article 23 of the Danish copyright law, artworks (whether permanently installed or not) may be included in pictures if they are contextually irrelevant. A picture may be 'contextually relevant' even if it is not the 'main subject' of a picture, so this definition is more narrow.

In Sweden, there was a case where the inclusion of [1] and [2] were determined to be infringing copyright when included in this website screenshot because the purpose of the picture was to show what the website looks like, and an important aspect of this was to show how the website displays images.

I'd argue that this picture doesn't have any 'main subject' (so it passes 'Article 24 de minimis' under Danish law), but the inclusion of the pictures is not 'contextually irrelevant' to the picture as a whole (so it doesn't pass 'Article 23 de minimis' under Danish law). An important aspect of the picture is to show how Wikipedia displays images, so the picture doesn't satisfy de minimis under Swedish law either. However, I don't know which implementation of de minimis USA uses. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aoc temp cover.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image is being used in the article Conan the Barbarian without a separate non-free use rationale (WP:NFCC#10). The existing, though unused, NFUR is for Age of Conan instead. This image fails contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) for Conan the Barbarian because it is a) not used to identify the subject of the article (another image already exists in the infobox to identify the subject of the article; the subject is "Conan the Barbarian", not "Age of Conan"), or b) the image itself is not the object of sourced critical commentary (only the release of the title is discussed, not the cover). (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion) This article already has six additional non-free items, which makes the inclusion of this file excessive use. (WP:NFCC#3a) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also at least one freely licensed image related to the release of the title File:Age of Conan promoters.jpg (WP:NFCC#1). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the most well known game associated with the topic. It has fair use rationale. The other image that is mentioned as a free use alternate is of scantily-clad women in front of the poster. This is not how fair use works, and it's not how Wikipedia works either. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete: The image is being used in a section of the article that is purely a list of games. There is no indication that this particular image is somehow representative of the genre, thus making it important to this article. There is an article for the game itself at Age of Conan, where any person needing to see images of the game can feast their eyes. There is a complete failure of WP:NFCC #8 here. The article reads the same without the image, as there is no tie in to the prose of the article that requires the image in order to support that prose. In fact, there's but a single sentence referencing the game. Lastly, the fair use rationale is woefully inadequate doing nothing to explain why the image is needed, just that the uploader thinks there is no copyright burden, which is provably false. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Portrait-Davidfstr.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned image. This is old image of myself I have removed from my user page. There is no replacement. -Davidfstr

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.