Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 0 6 1 7
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 31 1 32
RfD 0 0 61 7 68
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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.

What not to list here

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. 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}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. 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}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. 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.
  10. 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=2025 February 9}} 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=2025 February 9}} 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=2025 February 9}} 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.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • 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.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • 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.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Instructions for discussion participation

[edit]

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, not voting. 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.

Instructions for closing discussions

[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

February 1

File:Genesis76-82boxset.jpg

[edit]

File:Genesis76-82boxset.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BoffoHijinx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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. — Ирука13 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The photograph of the box set is clearly done by the publisher that owns the copyright to the box set and cover art (as part of the promotional material to send out the box art), so there is not a separate copyright, so the FREER argument falls apart. Once you clear that, then the other arguments for delete fall apart - the 3d photograph will have the same copyright burden as the 2d cover. Masem (t) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this image is indeed made by the copyright holder, according to WP:NFC#UUI#16 we should not use it.
From your answer I still don't understand why we need to use a 3D image of the box set and its contents if a 2D image of the front of the box is sufficient for identification. — Ирука13 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

File:CubaoCathedraljf9480 37.JPG

[edit]

File:CubaoCathedraljf9480 37.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Questionable if the logic of Leicester v. Warner Bros. is applicable for this case. According to this blog, the current building was built in the 1960s, but this stained glass in particular dates to the 2002–03 renovation; in effect, not the original integral part of the 1960s building. Since it was not the original part of the 1960s architecture, the FoP use granted by Leicester v. Warner Bros. isn't applicable in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't have to be part of the original architecture to be part of the current architecture so, if it were in the US, it certainly COULD apply. However, since this is in the Philippines, it doesn't. If it's not PD and we keep it, we're going to need to reduce the resolution. This is definitely a question I haven't assessed before. I'd like to hear more from others. Buffs (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this is in the Philippines is not the issue here. English Wikipedia uses US freedom of panorama law for buildings per {{FoP-USonly}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leicester v. Warner Bros. was primarily about whether architectural details created by someone other than the architect are allowed to be reproduced by freedom of panorama (they are). Renovations or remodels do not restrict the scope of US panorama freedom, and that is fundamentally what this is: Replacing one window in a building with another is a renovation. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

File:The main members of Hanahoe.jpeg

[edit]

File:The main members of Hanahoe.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Storm598 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a group photo taken after 12 December 1979, depicting the core members of Hanahoe. On Commons we have plenty of images about ringleaders Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, as well as free images for key members like Chung Ho-yong and Hwang Young-si. This shows that there are free equivalent images to illustrate Hanahoe's key members, WP:NFCC#1 is violated, and the file should therefore be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Simply being "preferrable" is not a valid argument — a fair use file can only be kept if there is no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, as per NFCC#1. The free images, while they could contain less information, already covers the ringleaders and the organization's key members, and serves the same purpose of identifying the main members.廣九直通車 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure if this will satisfy NFCC#1 but the photo has something of a meaning in contemporary Korean history, and is considered one of the most symbolic images of the Hanahoe. I don't really have RS right now to back up that specific claim, but when you search '하나회' in naver you'll notice how prevalent that image is. (ex. [1], [2], [3]) -- 00101984hjw (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

File:Flag of Petersburg, Virginia.png

[edit]

File:Flag of Petersburg, Virginia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RRayIV (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flag of unknown age. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply as it is not a federal work. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Litchfield, New Hampshire.png

[edit]

File:Flag of Litchfield, New Hampshire.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matt Lepore (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Flag of unknown age. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply as it is not a federal work. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soviet Lieutenant General Ivan Fedorovich Grigorevskii.jpg

[edit]

File:Soviet Lieutenant General Ivan Fedorovich Grigorevskii.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука13 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep File is labeled properly. That law never took effect. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    addendum, the current law retroactively re-copyrighted a lot of things and established a general copyright term of 50 years after the author's death or 50 years from the publication date of an anonymous work + 4 years if taken during WWII by a soldier (which this was likely). It's still PD be 50/54 years (distinction without a difference) after that date which means it's still PD now. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As it was unfree in Russia in 1996, it remains copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication, see URAA.
Furthermore, the uploader seems to have taken the file from a random website (which now uses a different photograph) where it doesn't say where the photo was originally published, so the copyright status in Russia is unknown as we don't know whether the author is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assessing it's anonymous since we don't know the author. This is the second time that you've assessed an author exists, but you don't know who it is and yet we still have to assume there is one. That's some serious mental gymnastics... BUT, even assessing that it was copyrighted in 1996 and not PD in the US, it is PD in Russia. I still stand by my keep. Worst case, we reassess and use a FUR. Nothing changes other than the documentation. Buffs (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the photograph was published before 1945. There is no evidence that the author is anonymous - no adequate attempts have been made to find the author and the circumstances of publication. Was this photograph published in a newspaper, printed or archived under the "Секретно" label until 2006? — Ирука13 00:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

File:Gen. Chuikov and Col. Batyuk in Stalingrad ruins.jpg

[edit]

File:Gen. Chuikov and Col. Batyuk in Stalingrad ruins.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука13 23:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It further says that any author who worked during WWII, or participated in the war, gets a copyright extension of four years. As this seems to be a professional photograph taken during the war, it is quite obvious that the author worked during the war. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my Keep. This law established a general copyright term of 50 years after the author's death or 50 years from the publication date of an anonymous work. This work is from 1942 and the author isn't known. So, even if it weren't PD due to being published a month later, it would still be 50/54 years (distinction without a difference) after that date which means it's still PD now. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the photo was published in the year it was taken (Russia, WWII, Секретно). No evidence that anyone has researched the history of the photo and found that the author is truly anonymous. — Ирука13 02:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any author. I'm not certain how one is supposed to show they didn't find anything. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

File:Between Midnight and Dawn poster.jpg

[edit]

File:Between Midnight and Dawn poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Croscher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This 1950 American film poster does not carry an attached copyright notice. It is thus in the public domain and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal, I think you go to wp:REFUND to request the deleted revision be restored and then you can export it to Commons via the button in the top-right JayCubby 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the usual way is to re-tag as {{PD-US-no notice}} and then add the file to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions.
I assume that you have access to a high-resolution copy of the entire poster. A copyright notice, if one was used, is usually at the bottom in small text, and this poster might be cropped as there is no whitespace in the borders of the posters. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wong Chik Yeok.png

[edit]

File:Wong Chik Yeok.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NelsonLee20042020 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May not pass WP:NFCC#8 in the Murder of Wong Chik Yeok article as the article is primarily about the act of killing her rather than her as a person and is not a biography. The object/subject of the article is the crime, not the person. Additionally, nowhere in the article discussed this image as a work. – robertsky (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is how these kinds of articles use these images - see the FAs Shooting of Stephen Waldorf, Murder of Dwayne Jones, Death of Mark Saunders, or really any other article like this. This is what, and I am not exaggerating, nearly every article about the death of an individual person uses. From a policy point of view, I don't see the issue with it - these are BIO1E cases where the person is inextricable from the event, so it satisfies the same rationale as the portrait ones. Why would it not? Using images on event articles involving the death of someone is established, even recommended practice. Take it to the village pump if you want to apply this broadly because this would disrupt tens of thousands of articles, and it would take us hundreds of years to FFD all of them using the same rationale if they are all inappropriate (but, given how established their use is and the contextual reason, it is clearly not). But I think they are appropriate and well within the spirit of the NFCC policy. If we move the Matthew Shepard article to Murder of Matthew Shepard are we going to have to delete the image of him? Ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, there are some cases where images like this have been deleted on the grounds that a non-free image of the person should be limited to an article about the person and thus can't be used in an article about an event where the person was involved. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think those reflect standard practice, of course there's going to be some one offs. It makes little sense, because with BIO1E cases the person and the event are so closely tied, so the same reason for the NFCC rule on portrait photos applies, and yes, not every article needs an image, but that goes for NFCC altogether. Of course it is relevant on the article about one person to see the one person the article is about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a scope for having victim's photos on the article, but the scope should be limited. I am not out to disrupt thousands of articles, but to have the relevance of the photos assessed on a as-needed basis. Shooting of Stephen Waldorf makes sense given that the death was sparked from the mistaken identification. The others less so, but may still be defendable, i.e. Dwayne Jonese was about his appearance, and if the photo was the closest editors can find to show his physical appearance, sure. But for this case, there was nothing about the victim's appearance, looks, or features that would give cause for the crime to happen or help a reader to understand what motivated the perpetrator to commit the act. If I may, I suggest that you read the article without the image loaded or cover and read again with the image. Does it really help you to understand the case better? – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky I just don't see how it's different from any biography. We technically don't need any single image of any historical person, but we allow NFCC uses of portraits of them, because of identification. Why is the need for identification any more pressing there than here? I do not think there is a single biography onwiki where you could not just as easily understand it without the non-free portrait. If we prohibit images of them it will encourage even further people making articles on the victim instead of the event with the justification that an image can be used that way. With a BIO1E case the person is inextricable to the event, so of course it is relevant to see what they looked like for identification purposes, it is an article heavily involving one person the same way a biography is. Why would you need to be able to identify a murder victim any less than you would need to identify a dead author? The former feels more important to see their face than anything. We already use such images with identical rationales on tens of thousands of articles - if this is a problem a wider discussion needs to be had so we can delete them en masse instead of in isolated FfDs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's a lot of logical fallacies to unpack here:
  1. you are making false equivalence between a full fledged biography of a dead author (or for the matter of fact, living one, it doesn't matter) whose entire life is pretty much celebrated (or reviled, depending on the notoriety of the person) vs what you are saying here a biography that's significant only for 1 event, the violence enacted against her.
  2. it is a slippery slope here that prohibiting images will encourage more of such articles. where is the evidence for that? How many of these articles are started with such an image first? Almost every single article here starts with words first, rather than images. If anything, the argument would have been without such images, no one will want to read and then write other articles if they choose to write.
  3. what's with the circular reasoning that the non-free image will help with identification addressing the need for truly needing the images? is the image discussed in the article? Is the image here helping to set context to the article, which details the crime committed, not the person, as per NFCC#8? How so if you think it does? Don't dodge these questions. Don't go back to identification is important, because it is not. Replacing the image with another person's, and the understanding of the crime committed is still the same.
  4. you are begging the question. You are placing undue importance on the identification of the person here without seeing the relevance or irrelevance of the image to the text in the article. There is no need to identify the victim, or even anyone in many cases unless the identification or appearance has a direct cause or effect on the case.
  5. And for other articles or images, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What other images and articles have are up for their own discussions. In fact, I have stated possible the reasoning to keep the NFCC images at least two of your three examples that you have raised. I am aware of what I am doing here. I am not changing any standards here, but simply applying existing ones.
– robertsky (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. They are equivalent for our purposes, IMO. Why is it that we need to cover someone's full life for identification of them to be relevant?
2. Being able to use an image is a benefit to structuring the article in a person based way, not an event based way. Considering how many of the person -> event based moves we make, this was a consideration that was not brought up at the time, and people may have voted differently if they knew they could not use an image if we moved it to an event based article.
3. The photo of Jones does not indicate the aspect of his appearance which led to him being killed. It is just as illegitimate as this one is. You can understand the Waldorf article just as well without the image (though admittedly that one can be viewed as more of a specific to that page rationale - I was picking out of our "[event] of [name]" type FAs and we don't have very many).
4. It is of course important to identify the victim because that is what the article is about. Why is it important to see a picture of the author? Because you are identifying the subject of the article, which the victim is, whether it is written in an event based format or not.
5. Because it is standard practice and people do it by default. I in fact struggle to find a single well-developed article of this kind that doesn't use an image like this, without a strict tie between appearance and death in the case. If it leads to widespread NFCC violations we need a clearer prohibition against it, because under the standards you are holding this image to the vast majority of images like this are illegitimate so we need to get people to stop uploading them. This includes the uploader of this specific file, who has uploaded dozens of files with the exact same "issue" (I don't think it's an issue), and is continuing to do so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not go through points 1-4 because we will inevitably go into a loop.
For point 5, being standard practice does not mean that we should blindly allow everything to go through as per normal. There are edge cases, and there will be edge cases. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when raised individually, it should be evaluated independently of the other articles/images as the situation of each article/image can differ from one and another. Will it determine or build into a case for all similar content is another matter or issue altogether, and it is a bridge that will be crossed when someone is interested in getting rid of a whole class of images, e.g. no victim's images for crime related articles. But given the varying levels of context of each fair-use image to the its article being uploaded for, it will be an extremely difficult bridge to step on. – robertsky (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But your argument for deletion I would say evenly applies for almost all of them. Creating unevenness in our standards is very bad, IMO, we should strive to be as consistent as possible. "being standard practice does not mean that we should blindly allow everything to go through as per normal" - agree with that, but it also means we need to urgently stop people from uploading any more violations. It would be better to completely prohibit the uploading of such images than to have zero rhyme or reason as we do now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmm, this is a tricky one. While yes, it may be standard to include photographs of deceased victims in articles such as these, and she is inextricable from the event, BIO1E simply does not apply because the event is almost completely extricable from her. There is absolutely no confusion, at least in my mind, as to whether the article is about her or her killing. Reading the article through will make that clear, because there is next to no information about Wong herself in it. For convenience, I've quoted all the sentences about her below:

Wong and her husband were a loving couple, and they often went out together for breakfast in the mornings[...]was married with Wong for 36 years and had two daughters[...]When his wife and younger daughter gave him prune juice as a remedy for constipation, Kong erroneously believed they were trying to "torture" him[...]Wong rested in the living room[...]Wong put up a struggle}.

I know I said "about", but I have to concede that they really aren't about Wong. Rather, they are about her marriage, her husband, and her children. If we had sources for facts in the infobox, and I was tasked with creating a "background" section, then I could re-write all of that as "Wong was born c.1953 in the Colony of Singapore and married Kong Peng Yee in 1980. She had what neighbors described as a happy marriage, two children, and lived as a housewife in Seng Kang until her killing." That's it. I do not believe that the reader's understanding of those two sentences would be increased by an image of Wong. Additionally, I have not seen anybody argue that removing the image is detrimental to the anybody's understanding of those two sentences. Thus, this does not pass NFCC#8 in the current article.

As an aside, if we compare this to the other examples given, we note that an image is used in the Waldorf article to demonstrate to the reader the perceived similarities between the two men at the time of the shooting, and we note that the Jones and Saunders articles have substantial content discussing the individuals outside of their deaths. There are, in fact, three paragraphs about Saunders and two about Jones. (Though the NFUR appears incorrect in the Jones article). If those paragraphs were split into their own articles and sent to AFD, they would most likely be merged back, not because the subjects didn't pass the GNG, but because of BIO1E-related arguments. If the information about Wong was split into its own article, it would be deleted due to the complete lack of SIGCOV about her as a person. An article about her husband would likely be merged out of BIO1E concerns. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian I see where you're coming from, but carrying this argument on how much is "enough"? Two or three paragraphs is barely anything compared to the rest of the pages in the aforementioned cases. The FA Disappearance of Natalee Holloway has only one paragraph about her. If we delete this so should we delete the image of Saunders and Jones and Holloway? I would say yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think where exactly that line of "enough coverage" is going to be hard to draw; I would say three paragraphs is actually pretty good. It's more than enough on its own to provide a well-rounded, encyclopedia article about a subject. Print encyclopedias rarely have articles longer than that. One Wikipedia, however, I would say that one paragraph often wouldn't be enough to justify a non-free image. That being said, I wouldn't start on the Natalie Holloway article, given that many academics and news articles argue that her appearance (pretty blonde white teenage girl) is a contributing factor to the reason her case got so much attention, and continues to get brought up nearly twenty years on. In fact, she's arguably one of the most prominent cases of missing white woman syndrome.[5][6][7][8][9][10]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree with that, because that seems like exactly the kind of thing that can be explained in text. We don't need an image to explain that someone is white and blonde and people paid more attention to her as a result. People know what white women look like. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Billie Eilish's 2 single covers

[edit]

File:Billie Eilish - NDA.png (delete | talk | history | links | Eilish - NDA.png logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Billie Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png (delete | talk | history | links | Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These files aren't cover of any vinyl or even physical. Even these pictures are included in Billie Eilish's "Happier Than Ever Lyric Video", but they can't play a role as "single cover" which have to be included in main infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilasdandelions (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep File:Billie Eilish - NDA.png – meets #1 of WP:NFCI – English source NME, as well as French source NRJ, described the image shared by Eilish on her social media as "NDA"'s single cover. Cover arts nowadays might only be published this way or through label's annoucments, because when the song is uploaded on streaming services, it usually gets the same cover as the album. infsai (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for File:Billie Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png, I have no sources describing this as a cover. Additionally, the single edit also received the same cover art as the parent album. However, covers used in infoboxes should visualize the single, and if there is one specific image tied to a song, it should be used. Interscope released all of Happier Than Ever lyric videos on YouTube, with each using different photos from album cover art shoot, so according to me it accomplishes the visual association with the single and the caption tells the viewer where that image came from. infsai (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Condemned FilmPoster.jpeg

[edit]

File:Condemned FilmPoster.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim1357 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Art style seems more 1940s than 1920s, so this is likely from a re-release. As a free image would be available, this fails the non-free criteria.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a poster from 1929 as suggested on the second line?
Is this a poster from a re-release in 1946, as suggested on the third line? If so, was the copyright renewed? I think that the copyright to posters rarely was renewed and the film is in the public domain.
Is this an Austrian poster from the 1930s, as suggested on the second line? The text is not in German, but if an Austrian distributor used a different poster in the 1930s, that poster could have been re-used in the United States at a later point. In that case, the poster is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (and potentially unfree in Austria too).
I note that the poster mentions Film Classics, Inc. (check the bottom-right). The first sentence in the article about the company reads Film Classics was an American film distributor active between 1943 and 1951. Therefore, this seems to be a poster published somewhere between 1943 and 1951 (so 1946 is a possibility). Of course, the same image could have been used earlier too. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That copy seems to be a bit cropped, so a copyright notice might appear in the parts which were removed when cropping.
I have no idea if this is from 1929, the 1930s or 1946. I don't know why Austria was mentioned, but if it is an Austrian poster, then it doesn't need a FUR to be copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the copyright notice (if present) would have appeared in the white border below the poster art. Usually lower-right corner. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did mean TMDB. You're able to post the IMDb link because IMDb isn't blacklisted. The TMDB version doesn't have that cropping. There's text saying "Country of Origin U.S.A." and "Morgan Litho Corp Cleveland". There's no copyright year anywhere on it. hinnk (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Gannet (1878) in 1914.jpg

[edit]

File:HMS Gannet (1878) in 1914.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shem1805 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Author unknown, publication date unknown. It is not possible to determine the licensing status of the photograph. — Ирука13 12:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the Flickr publication was the first publication ever (as you seem to be implying), then keep in mind that you also have to consider the United States copyright status. If an anonymous work was created in 1914 and first published in 2016, then the United States copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken (see c:Template:PD-US-unpublished), and 1914 was less than 120 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of statements here that range in veracity and applicability. I don't want to go point by point, but I don't see how else to point out the flaws in your reasoning
  • There is no evidence that the publication on Flickr was the first publication. Ok, if it was published elsewhere first, then it's incumbent upon you to show that it was published somewhere else first. Otherwise, you're asking me/others to prove a negative, literally an impossible task. You will rarely find something that says "this is the first publication" listed on it.
  • It could have been published on paper close to when it was taken Then show me when it was. You can't assume "it might have been published in a paper therefore it is copyrighted".
  • In order to determine the copyright status, you need to consult that publication so that you can determine if the photographer is credited, and if so, when the photographer died You are again assuming it was previously published. It's just as likely a series of photos taken at the time and stored in a folder somewhere.
  • Without information on where it was originally published, we have to assume that the photographer was credited, and 1914 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. That's not how this works. The photographer is unknown. The date of publication prior to 2016 is unknown. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, that's how we determine the copyright status of an image. We don't work based on hypotheticals. The logic of "Surely someone created it and someone published it at some point in the past probably, therefore it isn't PD unless we know who originally published it, the author, and when he died!" is absurd in the extreme. By this logic, literally no creative works would have unknown authors or unknown dates of publication making such a rule pointless.
  • Assuming that the Flickr publication was the first publication ever (as you seem to be implying), then keep in mind that you also have to consider the United States copyright status. If an anonymous work was created in 1914 and first published in 2016, then the United States copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken (see c:Template:PD-US-unpublished), and 1914 was less than 120 years ago. This is a foreign work and it was PD in the UK before it was published on Flickr.
  • Getting ahead of "well, you can't determine who the author/publication was. A reliable source has to do that" No we don't and we do it all the time.
If you can prove any of my assertions incorrect, I'll strike my comments. Otherwise, this image is PD. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that it was not published anywhere before it was published on Flickr, and therefore it is in the public domain in the UK. However, it was published somewhere before it was published on Flickr, and therefore it is in the public domain in the US. Don't you see the contradiction in your arguments?
A photographer doesn't magically become anonymous simply because you find a photo somewhere on the Internet that someone took from an unspecified source. You have to check the unspecified source to determine if the photographer is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated it was published somewhere before it was published on Flickr. In fact, I said the opposite.
I never said the work was "anonymous". I said the author was unknown (I only quoted you...you're conflating "anonymous" with "unknown" and that isn't the same). It is literally impossible to check an "unspecified source". However, I have given due diligence to attempt to find said source/author and cannot find it anywhere online. If you can find more info, I'm happy to change my mind, but you cannot claim that an image might have a known author and/or publication and therefore it isn't unknown author/unknown date of publication. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is not anonymous, then you can't use {{PD-UK-unknown}} as you can only use that tag if the author is anonymous.
If it was never published anywhere before it appeared on Flickr, then it is unfree in the United States until it is 120 years old. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not splitting hairs, yes, the author is anonymous and therefore {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies
I don't concede this point, but if that's what it takes, find. PD in UK, but not in US...either way, the answer is keep. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"PD in UK, but not in US" means we can't keep it. — Ирука13 16:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means we'd need a FUR...which can definitely be justified for TS Mercury unless you know of other free photos. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

File:Bcplate.jpg

[edit]

File:Bcplate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep simple shapes/state outlines. Retag. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unknown status of a photograph of a 3D object (plate). — Ирука13 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, effectively, a faithful 2D rendering of a 2D object: a license plate. Yes, everything that exists is technically a 3D object, but if that were the case, paintings would be 3D objects and they aren't. Many have more depth than a license plate. Even if you want to consider it 3D, this is a utilitarian image of an utilitarian object, something that cannot be copyrighted. The crimped metal outline of a license plate does not meet the threshold of originality. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for all similar nominations:
Like many others, this license plate has prominent protrusions that reflect light in an original way, and holes. It is a three-dimensional object.
The empty plate itself is not an object of copyright, I have never said otherwise. — Ирука13 14:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louisianatech.jpeg

[edit]

File:Louisianatech.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

File:Fundadoressigma.jpg

[edit]

File:Fundadoressigma.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eljohnson15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks like a scan/photo of an existing photo. Requires WP:VRT verification or relicensing in {{PD-US-expired}}. — Ирука13 11:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not very good with how to upload pictures, but this one is from 1928, I am sure there should be no problem, any suggestions?. El Johnson (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shops at Nanuet Logo.png

[edit]

File:The Shops at Nanuet Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fourc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A file that the uploader says "non-free" is actually free file, because this logo consisted of either simple geometry or wordmark that make the file ineligible for copyright in the US. Therefore, it is a violation NFCC and should be deleted from Wikipedia and placed on Commons instead. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barney72642.jpg

[edit]

File:Barney72642.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free. I can't find a copyright renewal for this 1942 US comic strip in Artwork 1965-1977. But maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Wikiacc () 02:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also c:COM:CHAR. If the copyright holder renewed the copyright to the first work where the characters appeared or a work where the design changed, the file may be unfree due to character copyright. I haven't searched for any renewals for this strip or for characters appearing in it. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penguin Crime I.JPG

[edit]

File:Penguin Crime I.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KF (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

One cover is enough for demonstration (WP:NFCC#3). Moreover, to demonstrate the appearance, it is enough to take any simple cover and replace the company logo with a white oval - the encyclopedic significance of the image will not suffer from this (WP:FREER). Image is not the object of sourced commentary (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука13 12:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It seems useful to me to demonstrate the degree of variation vs degree of consistency across the scheme. The rightmost cover is an example of the Marber Grid, noted later in the article. Caption could be made more informative to highlight this. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

File:Noel Skelton ca 1924.jpg

[edit]

File:Noel Skelton ca 1924.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davidtorrance (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It says that this is Scanned from an old newspaper, dated 1924. If the newspaper is identified, this can be re-tagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. If it can't be identified, then the image has to be deleted as unsourced. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:RotaryTexPlate.png

[edit]

File:RotaryTexPlate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for all similar nominations:
Like many others, this license plate has prominent protrusions that reflect light in an original way, and holes. It is a three-dimensional object.
The empty plate itself is not an object of copyright, I have never said otherwise. — Ирука13 14:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book (OK) and c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet (not OK). A plate like this might be somewhere in between. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think holes make something 3D. The protrusions are borderline and the stained glass policy example seems to suggest that this is fine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KansasJayhawksTexPlate.png

[edit]

File:KansasJayhawksTexPlate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KnightsColumTexPlate.png

[edit]

File:KnightsColumTexPlate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:EMSTexPlate.png

[edit]

File:EMSTexPlate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DontTreadTexPlate.png

[edit]

File:DontTreadTexPlate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png

[edit]

File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Some1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fair use image of a living person, fails WP:NFCCP #1 as it can be reasonably expected that a free alternative can be created at some point in the future. Since Luigi Mangione is facing federal charges it's highly likely that photos of him will be released by the United States federal government, which would not be copyrighted. Additionally, he has not been convicted, so we cannot reasonably assume that he will definitely go to prison and be unavailable for photography at some point in the future. Just because free images of him do not currently exist does not mean that they cannot be created. WP:NFC#UUI states Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image are not allowed to be used under fair-use. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is in federal custody being held on no bond, there are no free alternatives available, and it is not reasonably expected that the US federal government will release any free photos of him (what kind of free photo of him will they release anyway? There are already two mugshots--ones where he's in the orange[12] and blue[13]--that aren't free). Some1 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are no free alternatives available" does not mean that one cannot exist in the future. That is why Wikipedia does not allow fair use images of living people. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia does not allow fair use images of living people" -- Yes it does, see the infobox photos of Dylann Roof and Derek Chauvin, for example. Some1 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roof has life in prison and I would argue the Chauvin rationale to be illegitimate, since he will get out. Lifers yes, otherwise no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we predict what the next reason for the government to photograph him might be? I'm unable to imagine the oportunity. The possibility cannot be excluded but I am just not seeing it as something that is "highly likely". While it's reasonable to assume that any hypothetical future government photos of the subject will be free, all the mugshots have already been made; incidentally, the resulting images are not free. There will be future photographs of the subject, but it is very hard to say what the chances of any of those images being free are. Access is fairly limited in practical terms, and generally, it is more likely than not that any future photographers will be professional photographers, working for agencies, media outlets, etc.—Alalch E. 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these arguments prove that a free image cannot be made at any point in the future. Also it is more likely than not that any future photographers will be professional photographers, working for agencies, media outlets, etc. applies to all public figures or celebrities. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Advocates of using don't have to prove that a free image absolutely cannot be made in the future. That's an unnecessarily high standard. Instead, "could be created" means that those who oppose the validity of the stated free use rationale need to be able to describe a plausible, realistic scenario of how it could be created. If you can't do that, it still does not mean that a free image absolutely cannot be created, and we should still assume that there is a possibility; however, there existing some notional possibility is not equal to "could be created." "Could be created" means that there is an appreciable possibility, a possibility that people can comprehend. WP:FREER says in most cases, a photograph of a living person can be taken and released under a free licence. Well, this is a case outside of those "most cases". —Alalch E. 17:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it different than any other person in prison? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Per OP, this file clearly fails non-free use rationale. MB2437 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Using a “mugshot” as his profile photo is highly suggestive of guilt, despite the fact that he remains innocent until proven guilty. 2001:56A:FA30:BC00:412F:6E6E:7062:60D1 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 137.155.240.49 (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 73.31.212.52 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. 89.22.199.17 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree as well. 209.206.104.126 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree 184.187.49.252 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, highly suggestive 2600:1011:B152:E1C3:28EF:D896:5EE5:1CEC (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree! Free Luigi!!! 216.106.22.202 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Keep his mugshot. 2601:58B:500:7900:DD2E:268A:3F5:DCB8 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 2603:7001:76F0:63E0:CD85:804E:CA8:EB8A (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons given by other editors. Furthermore, other assassins or attempted assassins, such as Ryan Wesley Routh have mugshots as official infobox images, so I see nothing wrong with the same being done for Luigi EarthDude (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EarthDude Routh has one because mugshots in Florida are public domain. Not so other places. That is not a fair use image. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    those above stated individuals have been found guilty. As of 1/30/25 Luigi has not been found guilty. Therefore, keeping a mugshot image of him will generate an unfair image for the general public prior to a trial. Posting his mugshot image is very much putting the cart before the horse. 184.187.49.252 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are using the mugshot because we literally dont have anything else Trade (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not, yet, have life in prison. If he gets such a sentence then a fair use image would be appropriate. Otherwise the rationale is failed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can answer this question, but is there a guideline anywhere that says these fair-use images are only limited to (in terms of living people) "lifers" (people sentenced to life in prison)? Or people incarcerated for a specified amount of time (and if so, what's the minimum incarceration length to meet that criteria)? I'm just curious because there is the possibility of even "lifers" or long-term incarcerated people getting out of prison (either by getting their convictions overturned by appeal court or being pardoned, etc.)--not a high possibility, but there is a possibility. That would render WP:NFCCP #1 to basically mean no fair-use images of living people at all due to the possibility that a free equivalent "could be created". Is that the intended purpose of WP:NFCCP #1? Some1 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, unless the image is of a historic event which can no longer be photographed and serves encyclopaedic value. MB2437 09:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't any specific rule for incarcerated people (to answer my first question), and if the intended purpose of NFCCP #1 is to restrict fair use images of all living people, then it's failing since people like Dylann Roof and Derek Chauvin both have non-free images. NFCCP #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" -- As I've stated in my comment above, even people sentenced to life in prison could have their images "created" if they get their convictions overturned through appeal, get pardoned, or for some other reason, etc. There's always the possibility of free images being "created" for any living people, but I don't think the intended spirit of NFCCP #1 is to restrict all images of living people though.
    Regarding this image in particular, could an image of him "be created" in the future? Sure, but so could images of "lifers" or other incarcerated people as I've mentioned. The possibility of him having a free image (re: "could be created") is highly unlikely -- he is in custody being held on no bond for alleged murder and a bunch of other state and federal charges, the federal government doesn't randomly take photographs of prisoners and release them to the public (there are two other mugshots of him that aren't free), high-profile jury trials take several years to occur, IIRC New York doesn't allow cameras in their courtrooms and especially not for the general public, and as another editor mentioned above, any future photographers with access to him and the legal proceedings will be professional photographers, working for agencies, media outlets, which aren't likely to be free at all (which is why there still aren't any free images of him after the most recent Dec 23 Manhattan court hearing). Some1 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were clearly plenty of photos of him before his arrest taken by friends and family, asking for a free licesne of one of these should clearly be done first. And until he's actually sentenced, we can't assume a free image cannot be taken in the future. --Masem (t) 00:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read WP:NFCCP as "where no free equivalent is available [to Wikipedia editors], or could be created [by Wikipedia editors]", with the purpose being to prevent things like non-free maps and diagrams from being used if figures with the same info could just be whipped up by an editor.
  • If we interpret the text as meaning "could be created [by anyone ever]" then we reach the absurd conclusion that all non-free content is effectively banned because the copyright owner could theoretically create an equivalent derivative work and make it free at any time. Azixw (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The key word here is "reasonably" - we can't reasonably expect the owners of My Little Pony/Star Wars/etc to suddenly relicense their works under CC-BY-SA and start releasing new ones under the same license. — Ирука13 12:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why do we only allow NFCC portraits for dead people? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes you're right. I didn't realize that there were expanded guidelines at WP:NFC. Azixw (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons mentioned above. Aldazuri (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. Images prior to his arrest could be free licensed. He has not been convicted, is innocent until proven guilty, and the mugshot implies guilt. 2600:382:6063:3120:B034:1E4:167A:7047 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Some1's reasoning is hard to refute IMO. Unless and until he is released, there is no reasonable likelihood that a free image will be created in the near future. The encyclopaedic value of an image of a person in an article about that person should be self-evident. None of the arguments for deletion stand up to scrutiny. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why my previous comment got put here in the thread, and would appreciate it being moved to a top-level reply if someone cares to do that (and delete this one). I clicked the "reply" button to the top-level comment... --Sauronjim (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.122.132.46 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, since there's been a recent influx of IPs within the past 14 hours repeating the same !Delete arguments that the "mugshot" implies guilt: [14][15][16]: has this discussion been linked somewhere off-wiki? Also, I would tend to agree with these arguments if the "mugshot" images were of him in the orange jumpsuit[17] or blue vest[18], but this particular image doesn't look like the typical "mugshot"-style ones that people usually see. Some1 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this because it's linked directly from the Luigi Mangione main article where the image is used. That's quite possibly where more people who wouldn't normally see a deletion discussion could be coming from. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per reasons already discussed. Him being innocent until proven guilty is the deal-breaker for me. India Waalaa (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As other editors have already pointed out, there is a balancing factor on the fact that the article subject is being held pending criminal charges indefinitely, and being tightly controlled for access outside of court, in transit to/from court, and that the courts he is in being controlled. Quoting WP:NFCCP that theoretically some free alternative could be created at some point in the future fails on the term "could be created" in terms that the subject may not (for many years, perhaps indefinitely [if convicted]) have any possibility of having a free photo taken. Arguments that "a mugshot implies guilt" are unavailing due to the fact that the photo is not an apparent mugshot and even if it were, there is still a lack of imagery with a free license that is suitable for the article. Arguing that a free image might exist is a meaningless hypothetical. If someone has identified an existing free image under a free license that fulfills the purpose, that should be identified and placed in the article. --JDCMAN (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is, at this time, no reasonable expectation that a free image of the subject may be produced, for the reasons cited by JDCMAN and others, and it cannot be expected that Mangione will be available for photography in the future. Also, for my part, I do not think the image looks like a mugshot at first glance. He's not dressed in a prison uniform or anything, and there's nothing particularly damning nor particularly flattering about the composition of the image or Mangione's disposition. It's a fairly unremarkable headshot which implies nothing in particular besides his physical appearance, which, for our purposes, is appropriate. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this time and then Delete when a more suitable photo can be used. Bebo12321 - Talk 03:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reasonable timeline for a freely-licensed photo to exist given how difficult one would be to obtain. It's not impossible for a free alternative to exist in the future, but it is highly unlikely. One day there could be an alternative, whether it be by a photographer who uploads under free licenses being able to get a usable photo of Luigi, or the emergence of a pre-arrest photo that is freely-licensed/can be used with permission. However, there isn't any reasonable timeline for either of those happening. So until a free alternative emerges, this image would definitely count as fair use for the purposes of an infobox photo.
GKarastergios (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SearchRescueUtah.png

[edit]

File:SearchRescueUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:PurpHeartUtah.png

[edit]

File:PurpHeartUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for all similar nominations: The empty board itself is not an object of copyright, I have never said otherwise. — Ирука13 14:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:HumanUtah.png

[edit]

File:HumanUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Many of those are covered by FOP. Several are listed as own work by the uploader, which is clearly incorrect. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You completely miss the point. The rotary logo has been used for over a century. It is clearly in the public domain and in extremely widespread use (which was the point I made above pointing to commons). Buffs (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You completely miss the point. If the uploader doesn't provide any information about the age of the logo, it has to be assumed that it is recent. It is usually very difficult to prove that a logo is old as old information isn't readily available. See WP:F4. Also, as has been pointed out to you many times, there are traditionally inconsistent representations of logos (compare with coats of arms, see c:COM:COA), and each representation attains a separate copyright. No evidence has been provided that this specific representation was used long ago. The page you linked only states that the organisation began to use representations based on the current definition long ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader doesn't provide any information about the age of the logo, it has to be assumed that it is recent. No it doesn't and that's really the whole point here with all of these. Our copyright system is not straightforward. Mistakes happen all the time in labeling. As a contributor, you need apply just a little bit of common sense and do even a basic google search before you try to eradicate the work of others. FFD used to be files for deletion. Now it's "discussion". Semantics aside, it's pretty much the same thing as before. Before you nominate something here, do us all a favor and check it out first. Make sure the licensing is actually correct. Buffs (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's discussion.
Stefan2 did their part of the job. — Ирука13 00:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CivilAirUtah.png

[edit]

File:CivilAirUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CancerResearchUtah.png

[edit]

File:CancerResearchUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BoyGirlUtah.png

[edit]

File:BoyGirlUtah.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a state work, not a federal work. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

File:AnnaMayWongPiccadillyCover.jpg

[edit]

File:AnnaMayWongPiccadillyCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juntung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is either an original poster from 1929 which has been reused for the DVD (in which case it can be retagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), or a more recent image (in which case it fails WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by an original 1929 poster). Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:SOFIXIT [19]. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I fix it? As there is no information available on whether the image was published before 1930 or not (the uploader did not disclose this, nor did the uploader provide any sources for determining this), it is not possible to determine if the image is in the public domain in the United States or not. If it isn't in the public domain in the United States, the file violates WP:NFCC#1, as I wrote. Your so-called 'fix' doesn't contain any evidence that it was published before 1930 as you didn't provide a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This specific image appears to be an amalgamation of 2 parts of a previous image and was first published no earlier than 1970 (note the tag at the bottom of the image indicates this cover is a restored version by BFI...which was in 1970), however, note that this movie was published in 1970 and that the movie posters would require a registered copyright in the US in order to retain protections. There is no record of such a copyright in the US, therefore this image is in the public domain on a multitude of reasons. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      More infoThis movie's posters were first published in the US in/before 1970. The movie posters were not published with copyright notices and, therefore, this image fell into the public domain per US copyright laws. Example circa 1970. These posters were later used as DVD/VHS covers. This specific image was used for the Austrian release in 1929. This specific cover was first published in 2005, but the cover's artwork (the vast majority of the cover) is the poster image produced in 1929 (the rest is just addition/alteration of text which cannot alone be the subject of a new copyright) Buffs (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that this was first published in the US? It is a UK film.
Where is the evidence that it was first published in the 1970s?
Where is the evidence that it was published without a copyright notice? This page has a copy of the picture with some small text at the bottom at the places where you would normally expect to find a copyright notice. However, the text is too small, so I can't see if it is a copyright notice or something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First published in the US: 1929. Remastered edition was 1970 with the poster in question. Links were provided.
re: "Where is the evidence that it was published without a copyright notice?" To be blunt, that's right before you. Copyright notices on posters was not common practice at the time as duplication technology was in its infancy. Anyone who copied a promotional poster was producing free publicity for them and not considered a significant factor. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be assumed that a copyright notice was present unless otherwise proven. As it is not possible for me to read the text, I don't know if there was a copyright notice or not. If you claim that there was no copyright notice, then provide a legible transcript of the text at the bottom so that this can be confirmed.
You provided several links, but none of them reveals when or where this poster was first published. --20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"It has to be assumed that a copyright notice was present unless otherwise proven" That's literally the exact opposite of copyright law. It has to be proven to exist to claim such a copyright (and a registry at the time...which I can find no evidence of). Buffs (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is only lost in the event of absence of a copyright notice. It is not lost because we don't know if there was a copyright notice or not because the text is too small to be legible; instead, you have to look at the actual poster (or a better scan) in order to determine if there was a copyright notice. Also, a copyright notice is only relevant in the first place if this was first published in the United States, which we have no evidence of. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, given the age of the original image, you're in the territory that a copyright had to be clearly visible AND (eventually) registered. The REGISTERED component is also missing; no indication such a copyright was registered anywhere. Nothing I see there shows a copyright notice. As neither of these are present, it is PD. This is in stark contrast to the current copyright rules where things are presumed to be copyrighted. Laws and caselaw changed that in the 80s and 90s, but pretty much everything in the 70s and back is PD unless you can prove a copyright was registered and didn't expire. Buffs (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem is that we don't know how old this is. Registration is a US thing, and there is no evidence that it was first published in the United States. As I pointed out before, it is a British film. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources say that this is an Austrian poster from 1929. Thus, the DVD cover, slightly edited compared to the original, has the same license ({{PD-US-expired-abroad}}). However, it is not clear why English was used for the Austrian audience. In addition, the same sources mention that this image (with a naked chest) is missing from the film. Based on the above, I believe it necessary to delete the image until its origin is clarified, and use more commonly used original free posters (or their derivatives) to illustrate the article. — Ирука13 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring specifically to the image background image, not the text. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

[edit]

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

February 2

[edit]

File:Tom Brown's School Days 1st edition cover.png

[edit]
File:Tom Brown's School Days 1st edition cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EamonnPKeane (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph, rather than scan. There is no indication that the photograph of the book was released under a free license; a mechanical scan would not attract its own copyright, but this might.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep and/or Move to Commons as PD I'm on the fence on this one. This is a relatively rare book, but that's about as close to a faithful scan of a 2D, PD image (cover and spine) as possible. Near as I can tell, this is effectively a mechanical scan. I'd say that this qualifies, but I'm willing to be swayed by caselaw/precedent. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any solid opinions on the copyright status?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to the above, there is another problem: the relative position of the cover and spine. When they are fused, it is {{PD-Art}}. Now it is really unsure. — Ирука13 08:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

[edit]

February 3

[edit]

File:Retablo final, Francisco Díaz de León, 1928.jpg

[edit]
File:Retablo final, Francisco Díaz de León, 1928.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DogeGamer2015MZT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the image was published before 1930. — Ирука13 02:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liquor Control Board of Ontario (logo).svg

[edit]
File:Liquor Control Board of Ontario (logo).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Cosmonaut (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We typically don't keep non-free former logos. I don't think a single sentence counts as "significant" commentary. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Excavations at Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, July 2023.jpg

[edit]
File:Excavations at Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, July 2023.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Nevell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

FUR does not pass muster: we do not allow FURs for pictures of things and people that presently exist (unless other exigent circumstances are in play), only those that have died or been destroyed, such that no public-domain image could be produced. Moreover, at this resolution, the encyclopaedic value of the image is trivial; conversely, its commercial value is high, as it came from Reuters. The image itself is not discussed in the article. The stated licensing of "non-free historic image" is, in any case, untenable, since the image itself (as opposed to the thing it depicts) has no significant historical value. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Agree w/ nom. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In November 2023 a representative of Palestine's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities described the necropolis as "almost completely destroyed", so no appropriately licensed photograph depicting the archaeological remains at their most intact could be created after that point. The image becomes historically important as a visual record of the site before its destruction.

    I agree that at such low resolution encyclopedia value is reduced compared to if we could use the original, and that is perhaps enough to justify its removal, though don't agree that the commercial value of the same low resolution version is high. It is worth noting that WP:NFCI states Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity". I think it is very unlikely that a 0.03MP image would replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material but if consensus is that it may, and the image isn't adding enough to the article perhaps it should be deleted. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

[edit]

File:Hellsing Ultimate vol1 cover.jpg

[edit]
File:Hellsing Ultimate vol1 cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EliotimeNosferatum (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The purpose of the file is unclear (WP:NFCC#8).
This is the same Alucard, in the same red cloak, with the same gun as on the manga cover (NFCC#1 (text)). You can't even see his face here. — Ирука13 01:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plcperthcrest.jpg

[edit]
File:Plcperthcrest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loopla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that the logo existed in its current form before 1950. — Ирука13 03:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep...add FUR if you must If that's the date, I can't find a copyright registration nor a creator. 70 year post publication would be 2020, so PD in Australia, but not the US. Buffs (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superman 1978 film Lois.jpg

[edit]
File:Superman 1978 film Lois.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rootone (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image should be removed from Lois Lane in other media according to WP:NFC#UUI#6 / WP:NFCC#3. — Ирука13 03:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are no multiple images (items) but a single low-resolution chopped image of actress Margot Kidder as Lois Lane in two separate articles. WP:NFCC#7 states "Non-free content is used in at least one article" not that it can only be used in one article. It's very common on Wikipedia for some images to appear on multiple pages when the subject matter appears in multiple articles, e.g. [20], [21], [22], [23],[24].Rootone (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York Comic Con Comiccon Coco Austin Gekido Codename Justice Ravedactyl by Beyond Comics beyond comics beyondcomics.tv by Graig Weich graig weich.jpg

[edit]
File:New York Comic Con Comiccon Coco Austin Gekido Codename Justice Ravedactyl by Beyond Comics beyond comics beyondcomics.tv by Graig Weich graig weich.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Frr2391 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source says, "Beyond Comics Inc. grants permission for world wide rights to anyone who wants to repost these photos/images as long as they are not altered or referred to in a negative way and for websites and magazines that do reviews or features..." (emphasis mine). It appears that derivative works are not allowed, so this image is not free enough to be hosted on Wikipedia. ✗plicit 13:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpongeBob SquarePants Mr. Krabs and Pearl the Whale Float.jpg

[edit]
File:SpongeBob SquarePants Mr. Krabs and Pearl the Whale Float.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Last Wikibender (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unacceptable derivative work of non-free SpongeBob SquarePants characters. ✗plicit 13:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would be a violation of Wikimedia Commons' costume policy if it were to be transferred there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dancing with Myself by Maren Morris.png

[edit]
File:Dancing with Myself by Maren Morris.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paradisetoshutdown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not follow WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." Rather, a Billy Idol release artwork is at the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand but it does serve as the visual identification of the article dedicated to the a different version of the song. Might i suggest change the description?. Paradisetoshutdown (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how the image is important to the description of the cover song, how "its omission would be detrimental" to the understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

[edit]

File:General Accident coat of arms.png

[edit]
File:General Accident coat of arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tsc9i8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is labeled incorrectly, it is not a logo. The correct labeling - {{Non-free 3D art}} - prohibits the use of three-dimensional non-free images only for identification. — Ирука13 01:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WIKIFAN788899 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short n' Sweet (Deluxe).jpeg

[edit]
File:Short n' Sweet (Deluxe).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Camilasdandelions (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. The image for the announced deluxe edition is not required for the understanding of the article. Not to mention, the new artwork is near-identical to the original. livelikemusic (TALK!) 03:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image of the deluxe edition is relevant, because it visually represents the updated release; Even if the new artwork resembles, it is still a distinct version. Moreover, some articles also include deluxe edition covers in their infoboxes. Camilasdandelions (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change in artwork would be better described in words supported by incline citations within the article's body. Its removal would not be "detrimental to that understanding," as NFCC#8 cites. A change in image, still representing a blonde, White woman, is not necessary enough for it to be included in terms of non-free content. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 04:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless the cover is notable (e.g., caused controversy or made headlines), it definitely doesn't need to be on the page. Maxwell Smart123321 06:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dylx 07:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most albums have the deluxe edition’s cover on their page; it is standard practice. 119.234.10.152 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Concertforsandy.jpg

[edit]
File:Concertforsandy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jason1978 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I'm really not seeing anything in this image that qualifies the image for copyright in the United States. The only aspect I could imagine would cause that are the notches in the "2"s, but even those are geometric shapes. Retag as {{PD-textlogo}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

[edit]

File:Western Reserve PBS logo (2019).png

[edit]
File:Western Reserve PBS logo (2019).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mediafanatic17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 


File:Bucher rolleiflex.jpg

[edit]
File:Bucher rolleiflex.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Goonzobye diver (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no evidence that image was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука13 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a photo governed by Italian law. Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This is pretty clearly the latter. As this was clearly created in the 50s or MAYBE early 60s (based on the publications at the time), this pretty clearly was in the public domain in 1989 in the US (though this photo doesn't claim that). If it isn't, it certainly is by now in Italy and should be kept with a FUR if you find otherwise. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

[edit]

File:Mariska Hargitay as Olivia Benson.png

[edit]
File:Mariska Hargitay as Olivia Benson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Livelikemusic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:July2011MariskaHargitaySVU.jpg or a crop of c:File:Law and Order SVU.png, c:File:Mariska Hargitay on set of SVU season 12.jpg, c:File:Mariska Hargitay season 12 SVU.jpg, c:File:SVU crime scene set 1 season 12.jpg or c:File:SVU crime scene set 2 season 12.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. These photos all depict Mariska Hargitay in character as Olivia Benson. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oyanish.webp

[edit]
File:Oyanish.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J04n (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

this is the cover of music of central asia, vol. 6: alim and fargana qasimov — spiritual music of azerbaijan, as seen on the image itself, not oyanış. əkrəm. 09:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

[edit]
File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alex 21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:Peter Capaldi June 2014.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep picture of the actor not the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a photo of the actor in character, per the file description and the attached Actors in character category tag. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is mid-filming, he is not in-character, as can be seen from the source showing the other actors talking with each other out of character. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even per the description, it's the actor staring at a passerby during a break in filming. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace as the original uploader. Anyone familiar with the show knows that this is, indeed, the actor in-character. If free media is available, it should be used; NFCC is a undebatable policy. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep picture of the actor dressed as the character for filming, but not in-character at the moment. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also for consistency with infobox pictures of other Doctors and companions. BTS photo in b&w would stick out like a sore thumb. Vicquemare (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally would not be opposed to this, but the black and white is making me feel it may be unwise, since it's hard to identify aspects of the character in the photo. Additionally, the headshot is largely unhelpful, since the costume is a large part of identifying the character. File:Peter Capaldi as Doctor Who filming in Cardiff June 2014 (cropped).jpg contains a full body shot, but the black and white makes it impossible to identify 3/4 of the costume. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is also holding a paper cup, which does break the immersion that it is the character, instead of the actor in a break during filming. Though if we are going with a caption "peter capaldi in costume, in a break during filming" instead of the current caption-then I'm fine with it being replaced per nfcc#1, instead of kept per my vote. DWF91 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

[edit]

File:Antimcup2018.png

[edit]
File:Antimcup2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lado85 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The website listed as the source of the image states that all materials are copyrighted. There is no information that this image is published under a free license. The design of the cup itself is also copyrighted. — Ирука13 03:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SebastianSwissSchool.jpg

[edit]
File:SebastianSwissSchool.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OldakQuill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of a 3D image of unclear origin (and licensing status). The painting may be cut out. But why? — Ирука13 10:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

[edit]
File:Scythian tatoo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghirlandajo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука13 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

[edit]

File:Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi.jpg

[edit]
File:Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eyacorkett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:Luke Skywalker - Welcome Banner (Cropped).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is no free images of Luke from the Star Wars sequel trilogy. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth Vader.png

[edit]
File:Darth Vader.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:Darth Vader - 2007 Disney Weekends.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Today is February 9 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 9 – (new nomination)

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 "===February 9===" 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.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=1267305734"