Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

File:Admiral Adekunle Shamusideen Lawal.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (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:Air China Airbus A320-200 in "Plum Blossom" livery.jpeg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid PD rationale, sourced to a Commons file but is of higher resolution than the Commons file. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:38, 14 September 2017 (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:Fernando Figueroa.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superior quality version here: File:Illus-059 (Salvador, 20th Century).jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:36, 14 September 2017 (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 Birżebbuġa.gif

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: Convert to fair use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Birżebbuġa.gif Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep locally and convert to fair use in Birżebbuġa. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (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:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg

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: relisted on 2017 October 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Star Trek S1E1 screenshot.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid NFUR--not discussed critically, just used as ornamentation. Does not add educational value to the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 14 September 2017 (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:ST TheMenagerie.jpg

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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 11:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid NFUR--not used educationally or discussed critically. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I gave my reply in the previous deletion request Here in February 2017....and the image was kept. Why do I have to reply to a similar deletion request in 7 months again by the same nominator and where is the nominator's respect for wikipedia's deletion policies when a previous discussion decision was made on the same image just 7 months ago? Spock risked the death penalty by bringing Captain Pike to Talos IV according to Starfleet regulations and only a visual identification of Pike's current disfigured condition explains why Spock even risked such an action. The image explains the context of Spock's actions and is part of the reasons why this episode won a Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation as I said in my February 2017 response. I could have uploaded more images but I respect the one FUR image per article rule--Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm signing off now but its clear that koavf has an agenda to delete as many FUR image as possible in my humble opinion. This destroys other contributors interests in wikipedia. Sometimes an image is important for some articles. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per User:Leoboudv's point above. I would recommend moving the image to a point in the article that directly discusses it, which is my understanding of best practice. And yes, I definitely do want to delete as much non-free media as possible to keep the fair use material that we do have very clearly fair use. This encourages free culture and knowledge, which is the purpose of a free encyclopedia. It's unfortunate if someone doesn't want to contribute here if he can't upload an indefinite amount of screenshots but that person has probably fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of this learning resource. Note also that several of our language additions feature no fair use media (e.g. es:w:) and they have a totally legitimate reason for that. You can call that an "agenda" if you want but a more positive and good faith approach would be to simply call it a set of values and commitments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best koavf and thank you. Most of my edits is on Egyptological matters with a few on politics like the Battle of Raqqa. I only have a few FUR images on Star Trek since the rest were deleted by you long ago. This is my Wikicommons page and my pictures here are mostly of European and native Indian art. This and this are some flickr images I got licensed freely for Egyptology since most of my interest is on Ancient Egypt. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) from Canada and Goodnight[reply]
- @Leoboudv: Thanks for all your good work and kind words. And best from south of the border. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:01, 14 September 2017 (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:Cylon Centurion.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid NFUR--this is not a cover. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 14 September 2017 (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:Sadhanasingh bollywood actress.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published on official Facebook page. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:23, 14 September 2017 (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:Compile logo.svg

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. As incorrect. @Namcokid47: or someone else still need to redo the logo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

logo is incorrect Mattsephton (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) is the uploader of this file, I just added the licensing status, source, and requested it be transferred to Commons. ~~Also I personally see nothing incorrect with the logo so not sure what the basis of this discussion is~~. Salavat (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that this has been updated since I commented and Namcokid47 has been notified by the nominator. Salavat (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies I got the wrong user and have corrected references now. The logo is incorrect because Compile never had a logo that looked like this. The easiest way to spot the difference is the gap in the P (which was not there in any of their logos) but also the font is not the correct one. Creator Namcokid47 has also stated that he couldn't find the correct font so used a close match. Mattsephton (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will need to simply redo the entire logo as the font isn't correct and that the actual Compile logo doesn't have a gap in the "P". Namcokid47 (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I didn't notice the differences when I added the source to the file. I have struck out part of my comment above. Salavat (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem, thanks for dealing with it in this way Mattsephton (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2017 (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:Sacred Elephant Tusks in the Telakan Karen Sanctuary in Laytongku.jpg

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. This image specifically, if the photographer doesn't want to allow free reuse, is not in compliance with our copyright rules. If the Bangkok Post has an own image they are willing to freely license, it can be uploaded separately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is stating they are the copyright holder, and that the image has not been previously published. However, it is part of this gallery. The EXIF also indicates the author to be Jean-Michel Frederick. WP:OTRS confirmation would be needed. Whpq (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hav sent an URGENT email message to Jean Michel Frederick: [email protected] INFORMING him of the situation concerning publishing his photo on my draft article but I do not know exactly if and when he replies how to pass his permission on to you to verify it.Palukiwa (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Michel Frederic was in Laytongku with me up until the last week of February 2017. He and I have shared photos with the intent of using them on various Internet sites. I assumed from his giving me that right to list it as not having been used although I know he placed it on his www.LayTongKu.info site. As it is the only photo of the sacred elephant tusks that I might have used I have deleted it from my Draft:Telakan Karen of Laytongku. Attempting to put it there was a test to see if it actually was free. I know Jean Michel Frederick is now in California with his family and may not answer his email messages due to family affairs he is engaged in. He is a long personal friend and traveling companion. If this is a problem then I would prefer to leave the photo off my article and find another from my own camera. I am sorry to have caused a situation. I am new at certain procedures and this test has been rewarding for me to know better what can be done especially now with photos. Thank youPalukiwa (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an Email reply from Jean Michel Frederick giving me permission to use any of his copyright photos exclusively but only to me and not to be considered 'free photos' for any other. He indicates in his Email that he will endeavor to work this out directly with Wikipedia over this weekend September,15-17 or Monday 18 September latest.Palukiwa (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Palukiwa:For use on Wikipedia, the image must be freely licensed for everybody to use, so the condition that it "not to be considered 'free photos' for any other" is a problem. If your friend decides that he is comfortable releasing the image under a sufficiently free license, he can follow the instructions at WP:DONATEIMAGE. If you or your friend have any questions about media copyright or are unclear on free licenses and the implications of releasing under a free license, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a good place to ask questions. - Whpq (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent your detailed directive and information to my friend Jean Michel Frederick for him to decide how he wishes to resolve this situation for use of his photo. I am not certain he would want to give it freely to everyone, however, I know he is as supportive of the Telakan Karen hill tribes as I am so he may do so. In the meantime do you have any information as to whether photos on Bangkok Post articles are allowed to be freely used since they published two, one of the elephant tusks alone, I could substitute for Jean Michel Frederick's photo. The Bangkok Post photo is available on their article -which see: "Ancient Carved Tusks Stolen From Karen Village (Laytongku., Bangkok Post, 10 June 2017 17:45, by:Assawan Pintwong." I have the photo in question downloaded on my computer so I could upload it, however, I felt it might not be free to use so I uploaded one I knew was free to me. Do you know the condition of Bankgok Post photos?Palukiwa (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information and guidance I am uploading a photo that's source is from the Bangkok Post of a photo of the sacred elephant tusks. I will indicate it is a free photo of my own for this test to see it it is a copyright photo. If so it can be deleted immediately or perhaps I will find a way to contact the Bangkok Post to find out if they will allow me to use it on Telakan Karen of Laytongku article in draft form. I do have regular emails coming from the Bangkok Post for job openings daily and if the photo is a copyright one then I will see how to contact them for release with the caption: Photo compliments of the Bangkok Post. This is only a test!Palukiwa (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the Bangkok Post requesting permission to use their two photos by Assawin Pinitwong of the sacred tusks as presented on their 10 June 2017 article: "Ancient Carved Tusks Stolen from Karen Village." I assume Wikipedia and the Bangkok Post already have in place a policy agreement for re-publishing photos from the Bangkok Post onto Wikipedia articles. If not then I suggested from your directives how the Bangkok Post might free the photos through WP:DONATEIMAGE and then would be captioned: "Photos by: Assawin Pinitwong. Courtesy of the Bangkok Post." I do not want to place my friend Jean Michel Frederick in an awkward position of granting "free right to all" for his photo if he prefers to keep his photos under copyright. I trust there may be a way to do this with the Bangkok Post which in many ways I prefer it in any case.Palukiwa (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2017 (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:Octagon-warning.svg

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: Closing as moot. The latest version was uploaded from Commons. -FASTILY 04:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this file should be updated with the version available at commons, or deleted and "upload-protected" if that's an option. The version available at commons is 1/14th the file size of the current one available on enwiki. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: looks like you are processing this - as this is used in the interface, please upload a local copy and protect to protect against commons: vandalism. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux. I have salted the local title and requested upload protection at commons. Regards, FASTILY 00:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: OK, I'll just do it myself; we should not be dependent on commons: community operations. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disagree. Hosting the file on Commons, a centralized location, means that this sort of manual file maintenance isn't necessary. Some enwp folks have an irrational distrust of Commons, but I'm going to leave it at that lest WWIII breaks out. -FASTILY 01:34, 23 September 2017 (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:Captured Muzonians During MuzonNHS Recognition.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captured Muzonians During MuzonNHS Recognition (cropped).jpg

Unclear what the derivative work is. Nominating for discussion as this user has a pattern of removing DI tags. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:53, 14 September 2017 (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:Faculty Picture of 2016-2017 (Derivative MUNHS).jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faculty Picture of 2016-2017 (Derivative MUNHS) (cropped).jpg

Unclear what the license of the derivative work is. Nominating for discussion as this user has a pattern of removing DI tags. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (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.