Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 3

November 3

File:President Anura Dissanayake portrait.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded image is from an official website that states "All website content @ 2024 President's Office All rights reserved.", hence this appears to be copyrighted content. JVPAppuhamy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 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.

File:Dr Nihal Abeysinghe.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=369881488146051&set=a.369881454812721 JVPAppuhamy (talk) 03:24, 3 November 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.

File:PosterArtists.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free use in Paul Martin (illustrator)#Gallery of poses which fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free images are pretty much never allowed in image galleries because said usage almost always is more illustrative than contextual, and pretty much always fails WP:NFC#CS. There's nothing about this image that requires it be seen by readers of the article and there's no sourced critical commentary specifically related to it as an image; moreover, there's certainly no need for it in a gallery with five other freely licensed / PD images. Readers don't need to see an image of Martin winning an award since such information can be more than sufficiently understood by text supported to a citation to a reliable source. The single sentence "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries (pictured)." in Paul Martin (illustrator)#Commercial artist doesn't even come close as a justification for this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE. Hello. I am the person who originally uploaded this image in 2021. I knew the person who owned this original clipping and allowed me to upload it to Wikipedia. I ONLY had the picture. I had no idea what was the date or source of the picture. I researched for quite awhile, and finally was able to pinpoint the original source. Namely, The New York Herald Tribune newspaper dated Feb. 22, 1931. A New York City librarian by email assisted me in figuring out the details surrounding the 90-year-old clipping. Hence, this uploaded clipping did not originate from anywhere on the Internet or at any public library.
This picture is shown in mini size in the WP article and only for identification purpose. It supports a sentence in the article that goes, "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries." But it indirectly supporters the surrounding sentences as well. This is a rare image of the artist. So it is actually quite important to preserve. Yes, there are a few others, but that is the entirety of them all. This picture is more effective than text, which can often be misleading. It did not appear in any other newspaper but this one. There must be countless more grievance cases elsewhere. I think it will be in the public domain in another two years anyway (and then not even have to be dramatically reduced in size). Yes, there is a reference (no. 131) stating where the picture is located, but one would only be able to view it with a premium subscription to newspapers.com. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are several images public domain images of the artist being used in the article, including the infobox image, which are more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes; moreover, it's not really the purpose of non-free use to preserve "rare" images just for the sake of doing so per WP:IRREPLACEABLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this image can be exported to Commons. So it's not possible to click a link in a reference, in order to view the image. It's forced to stay at WP, at least until it falls into public domain (? Jan 1, 2027). It actually was the only image of him that existed with an artwork, until less than one month ago. I just recently located that circular image of him with the Girl Scouts' director. JimPercy (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All images will eventually enter into the public domain, and Wikipedia's isn't forced to keep a non-free image just because there's only a few years to go until it enters the public domain. If you can find sourced critical commentary related to this particular image itself (not what it depicts but the actual image itself) and can somehow incorporate that into the article, then perhaps the image could be moved from the gallery to where the content is found; however, there's no need to have a non-free image simply because it shows Martin standing in front of this or any other of his works simply because the file is "rare". Furthermore, there's nothing about the sentence "The top three finishers then posed together behind their entries." that requires a non-free image of that particular scene be seen by readers to be understood. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Marchjuly. How about if I take out the image with the caption "Check exchange" from the heading "Gallery of Poses?" It will be accessible via a reference link instead. That way, everything will be back to how it was until recently. The outcome will be the same. Specifically, getting rid of an image.

The importance of the poster is illustrated at reference 6. It begins, "This poster was pictured and sold in every Girl Scout Equipment catalog from Fall 1931 to Fall 1936." There are four links in that reference. The Girl Scouts had a Spring and Fall Equipment catalog back then. Hence, Martin's painting was pictured and sold in twelve consecutive catalogs. All issues are viewable at Internet Archive. It also appeared on the cover of two of those catalogs. Most American Girl Scouts from that era would have seen Martin's painting. It was their official poster for six straight years. My guess is that the Girl Scouts' official painting was not updated due to the Great Depression, but nonetheless. JimPercy (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC) PS. Yes, a picture of the artist is rare.[reply]
@User talk:Marchjuly. I just made the edit with the summary words, "removed excess picture from Gallery." I deleted the image that had the caption, "Check exchange." I'm hoping you can now remove the deletion tag you've placed. Thanks, JimPercy (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be my last comment here for a while because I've already posted enough and it's best to give others a chance to comment. Since you're asking me a question, though, I'll respond. In my opinion, nothing you've posted above or done in the article has changed my assessment of this file's non-free use; in fact, you seem to be somewhat misunderstanding not only the intent of Wikipedia's Non-free content use policy, but also how it applies to images such as this. Wikipedia doesn't need to preserve this image, and it doesn't really matter that there's no way to link to it. If you'd like to do those things on your own off-Wikipedia, you may do so; however. Wikipedia is not intended to be used in such a way. Of course, others might not agree with my assessments with respect to this image. If enough people agree with your assessment, a consensus for the keeping the image will likely be established. That's the purpose of bringing it up for for discussion here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the above exchange and don't find it convincing. Remember that Wikipedia keeps a permananent record of even deleted images and we can put a note at Category:Out of copyright in 2026 (or whatever the appropriate year is) to remind us that it will enter the public domain and can be restored then. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I removed it from the WP article yesterday. I think the item in question would fall out of copyright Jan. 1, 2027. (1928 1 1 1 = 1931.) JimPercy (talk) 15:01, 7 November 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.

File:Tom Tugendhat campaign logo, Unite Rebuild Win.png

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 result of the discussion was: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -Fastily 23:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use that violates WP:NFTABLE, and also WP:NFCC#8, as campaign logo doesn't significantly enhance the article. Looks like this could just be pd-logo, as the logo is just text and the Union flag which is not copyrighted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to "PD-logo" or "PD-ineligible-USonly": This fails WP:NFCC as pointed out above, but it does seem like a good candidate for {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It seems to meet c:COM:TOO US for local use on Wikipedia, but might not per c:COM:TOO UK. The basic imagery of the Union Jack itself isn't eligible for copyright protection any more, and the image of the flag used in the logo seems to be pretty standard clip art. Given c:Category:Union Jack graphics, this would seem to be OK for Commons, but it should be fine to treat as PD locally here on Wikipedia even if it's not. If the consensus is to convert this to PD, the originally uploaded version deleted per WP:F5 could be restored as long as it's the same as the current version, and nobody goes ahead and uploads a cleaner SVG version to Commons to replace the png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur with reclassifying as PD-ineligible-USonly. I originally flagged it fair use because it replaced a fair use image where the Union Jack was blurred out; it probably meets TOO in the UK but definitely wouldn't in the US. AceSevenFive (talk) 23:20, 3 November 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.

File:Atoll K.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have several free posters for this film, so this file is not necessary, and doesn't meet the fair use criteria any more: c:Category:Atoll K (1951). Yann (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that this was uploaded in 2009 and that Commons files were uploaded much later, the file could've probably just been boldly replaced at left to be speedy deleted per WP:F5. Nominating it for speedy deletion as replaceable non-free use was also an option per WP:F7. The only thing that really needs to be discussed here is whether this file is (like the files on Commons) also within the public domain, and thus there might be some value in converting it from a non-free license to a free license. If that can be done, the file could be moved to Commons and added categorized like the other files related to this film. An archived version of this file's source can be found here and it looks like it might be a French poster. Is it possible that the image could be within the public domain per c:COM:France? The film came out in France in October 1951, and France's copyright law seems protect works for 70 years after their publication. If this is the poster used for the film at that time, then might it not have entered the public domain on January 1, 2022. If it did, then perhaps this might be OK for Commons and could be used as the primary image for fr:Atoll K (the French Wikipedia article about the film) if French Wikipedia wants to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 3 November 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.

File:MPTV Logo.png and File:WMVS 2020 Logo.png

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 result of the discussion was: Move to commons -Fastily 23:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair-use rationale because there's no significant commentary regarding it. So, this image (along with WMVS 2020 logo) needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and if we keep these images outright, move to Commons and relicense them as (PD-US-1978-89), according the result of discussion regarding undeletion by Taivo (which also in turn based of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino, where it become free through formalities.) 103.111.100.82 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If these are PD, then they should be moved to Commons as suggested above. If they're not, then it makes more sense to me encyclopedically to keep the primary main logo for Milwaukee PBS and delete to two individual station logos instead. The sections about the individual stations actually started out as stand-alone articles about each station, but recently merged into the main article. This changes the non-free rationales for those two files' respective uses since they're no longer be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone articles about the stations themselves. Assuming the merging doesn't end up being undone, it's the non-free uses of the two individual station logos, not the main logo of the brand itself, that now have issues per WP:NFCC. The non-free use of logos used for primary identification in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about organizations are typically given a little more slack when it comes to WP:NFC#CS much in the same way as is done for cover art because the entire article itself is about the said organization; so, as non-free, the main logo's use seem OK (at least to me). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and affirmation. Since the main PBS logo is PD, this image can be moved to Wikimedia Commons and relicensed as such license (PD-US-1978-89) similar to main PBS logo (see See miscellaneous section). 2404:8000:1037:4E4:F92C:FA4D:AE44:A5BC (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons unless there's significant commentary regarding it. 182.1.234.31 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 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.