Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	19	19
TfD	0	13	13
MfD	1	1	2
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	58	58
AfD	0	3	3

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]

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
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.
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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
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.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 April 2}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 April 2}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2024 April 2}}` 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 1931, not 1925.
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 it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

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:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

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

WP:FFDO

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

March 15

File:JamesMayAutocar.jpg

[edit]

Whilst there is text in the article about the incident to which this image pertains, the addition of this image does not significantly enhance reader's understanding of the incident anymore than the text explanation of what it spelt out. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But for me it greatly enhances understanding of the incident. Taivorist (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After reading the article, I agree with @Taivorist that having the image showing how the letters of the hidden message were laid out in the articles of the magazine does enhance the reader's understanding of subject, and so in my opinion it does not fail WP:NFCC#8. --Fhsig13 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, keep. None of the articles are actually readable minus the big letters, and seems to enhance understanding of the article by making the message clear. Maybe the cover bit to the left should be cropped further, but the right side of the image (the important part) is good IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article already explains how James May did this, I don't personally believe that this visual representation of this adds any significant understanding of the subject matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But for me it enhances understanding. I did not understand without image, that all big letters were situated on separate pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were situated always on the same position on different pages. I did not understand without image, that the big letters were so big, when compared with normal text, and they had another color. Taivorist (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 06:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information about what he did is adequately described with text. The entirety of this represents one sentence in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep readers would be very confused without this image in the article. Certainly I wouldn't be able to imagine this with just the text alone. Mach61 04:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's a really cool image and I'm sure readers would be confused without it iff it actually was discussed in-depth in the text of the article with sourced critical commentary. Perhaps you'd like to be the one who makes these improvements to the article? :) -Fastily 03:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily Upon reviewing the article, it would seem the that entire "Dismissal from Autocar" section consists of what is now three paragraphs worth sourced critical commentary connected to the image, which I have also just added to. The section describes why and how the hidden message was created and laid out (as well as can be done with text at least, hence the need for the image), and I have also just added a blurb on how the message was detected, leading to Mays' termination. That said, and with all due respect, I am not sure what more can be added in terms of commentary related to the image itself, and moreover, I feel that what is present should suffice to make this use of the image in question compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Please accept my apologies, however, if I am mistaken in that regard. FHSIG13 ^TALK 06:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see sufficient critical commentary here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 1 April 2024 (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.

March 26[edit]

File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bridge collapsed in the middle of a major metropolitan area, someone could go out right now and take a free image of the aftermath, so this particular screenshot is not irreplaceable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fair use claim is invalid. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Keep and move to Commons per below. --Bedivere (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, free images likely to come within hours Personisinsterest (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage, public domain due to no human input/author. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is CCTV? If that's true, I would say to reupload as a free file. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StreamTime LIVE uses PTZ cameras, and they actively point and zoom them at various targets, mostly to follow ships going in and out of the port. These aren't fixed CCTV cameras. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, however it is still from a general 24/7 livesstream of the bridge. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are claiming that they own the copyright: DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has absolutely not been legally established within the United States. In some countries, maybe. In the US, there is no such clear legal precedent. We need to err on the side of caution. The original source itself [1] claims that their videos are copyrighted. -- Veggies (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/upload full resolution/move to commons - CCTV or 24/7 webcam footage does not contain any original authorship which could be protected by copyright, see c:Template:PD-automated. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow c:Template:PD-automated only applies to images from "a completely automated system", so this image would not qualify since it is from a camera remotely steered by humans. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly unlikely that someone manually steered the camera to the bridge the moment before the impact, and even if someone did: Copyright claims by that person on the footage would be absurd. They don't own the camera, they didn't install the camera, they probably could not have expected the accident -> clicking a button to move a webcam is not "original authorship" IMO. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cameras are controlled by StreamTime LIVE, who also own and installed the cameras. They're not controlled by random people on the Internet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the automated CCTV justification above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the automated CCTV justification above. Additionally, the image is irreplaceable as it shows the collapse as it happened, not the aftermath. There are very few photos of the event as it had occurred. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a Commons upload of the CCTV video linked in the {{External media}} template in the body, similar to what was done at 2020 Nashville bombing. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the video to Commons as File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm and added it to the article. — Goszei (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CCTV_video_of_Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse.webm --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/reupload as Commons file as per the automated CCTV discussion above. Also agree with Dellwood that this image of the bridge is irreplaceable and there is likely no comparable image PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This YouTube video seems to be the same as the one from the screencap, although it seems much more blue rather than the yellowish tint in the screencap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULzspJZuf8 -- Note the description: "The StreamTime LIVE camera captured the collapse. ... DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION." So... can we really just reupload the entire CCTV stream as a commons file under fair use? --Corporal (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an example of copyfraud. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, uploading "fair use" or other forms of copyrighted media (except {{Copyrighted free use}}) is unacceptable. I'd better supporting @JohnCWiesenthal's explaination because it's an automatic camera (CCTV) footage and claim copyright on it has already unacceptable. Kys5g^talk! 13:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The principle of copyright-free CCTV videos has never been legally established within the United States. The original source, StreamTime Live, explicitly says that Duplication or distribution of our videos is strictly prohibited without permission. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. [2] I strongly urge that admins err on the side of caution here. -- Veggies (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I concur with @Veggies, in that the image was taken from a source claiming copyright ownership and where no legal precedent exists in US copyright law to allow for re-licensing as Public Domain. By virtue of these two factors, the file in question more than likely meets criterion WP:F7 (per subsections b and c) for WP:SPEEDY, as this seems to be a clear-cut case of non-free media taken from a commercial source that is not the subject of sourced critical commentary, as well as the file may also meet criterion WP:F9 as it is also an unambiguous violation of that sources' copyright. Secondly, (and thanks to @Goszei for doing this), this file is now redundant to a similar Commons upload, so it more than likely meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY as well. Lastly (and this only applies if the file is somehow proven not to qualify for speedy deletion), I also concur with the nominator that the file in question cannot be kept by virtue of fair-use, as the possibility that the collapsed bridge could still be photographed (and the existence of free media which depicts that) would cause it to fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section B and C of criterion F7 may be better. It's copyfraud to do so and the event depicted was happened recently. So in my opinion, anyone can take an image about that incident (or its aftermath) and license it under a free license. Kys5g^talk! 13:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kys5g Upon further review, I concur that those sections of crtierion F7 are a far better rationale for deletion of this video file. As such, I have amended my rationale above. Thank you for your clarification. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent nominations[edit]

March 27[edit]

File:Mayor's Office Festivals Billboard.jpg[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D graphic works, whether displayed temporarily or permanently. ✗plicit 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The image in question cannot be kept as free media due to the copyright issues cited by the nominator, nor should it be kept and relicensed as non-free, since I don't believe that it would meet the requirements for {{Non-free 2D art}}. Additionally, after reviewing current uses of the image in question, it would more than likely fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), in all five articles in which it is present. FHSIG13 ^TALK 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png[edit]

Two problems. Firstly, I cannot spot any "cover art" that would prevent us from uploading such a photo to Commons. Hence, it's not a fair use image. Secondly, and more importantly, this photo is under copyright as the website it's taken from does not publish its content under a free license. Schwede 66 06:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Firstly, the image in question does appear to depict the covers of the books, so the license template used on the description page is valid, as far as I can tell. Secondly, if the image is copyrighted then fair-use is the only avenue through which it can be used on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the image appears to pass all 10 WP:NFCCP criteria, so I don't see any issue with maintaining the status quo here. As such, I am recommending WP:SK, per Applicability point 3 (erroneous nomination). FHSIG13 ^TALK 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all of the points made just above by Fhsig13. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense: Out of copyright. New Zealand copyright law stated that the work published prior to 1974 (50 years after creator's death) are public domain. The author died in 1963. In my opinion, its copyrights was already expired in 2013 then. The nomination is a bit erroneous but it's true. Kys5g^talk! 14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1. The book covers may be ineligible for copyright, but this image *is* a photograph which does have its own copyright that must be taken into account. I believe the slant and styling of the books depicted in the photograph may be creative enough to warrant the creation of a new copyright. Furthermore, the source website does not offer its content under a free license. As such, this should be treated as non-free. -Fastily 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily Thank you for that very helpful follow-up research. As a result of that clarification your provided vis-a-vis the issue of copyright status of the photograph itself, my original rationale no longer applies. As such, I have struck my original vote and am hereby changing to recommend deletion as the image does fail WP:NFCC#1 when treated as non-free, since any willing individual could purchase a copies of these books, photograph the covers, and then release the photo(s) under free licensing since the books themselves are in the Public Domain. FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

File:RCA Studio II Logo.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An svg of the RCA Records logo is in the public domain for not meeting the threshold of originality. Since the Studio II logo consists only of the same Records logo with two generic fonts, would it meet the TOO as well? Carlinal (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense and Move to Commons: I believe that the nominator is correct, in that as the image in question consists of simple text in two fonts, one of which has already been proven to be below the threshold of originality, the image in question is below that threshold as well. As such, I recommend relicensing the image as {{PD-textlogo}}, then moving it to Commons. FHSIG13 ^TALK 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two of us sheet music.jpg[edit]

These sheet music covers only contain simple text/shapes and are thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. Licenses should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The Beatles are a UK band and TOO in the UK is very low. These are probably fine under US TOO however. -Fastily 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these US sheet music covers? And, if so, shouldn't US law apply here, rather than UK law?

See here for a similar case involving the Harry Potter logo. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did you make the determination that these sheet music covers from the US? -Fastily 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the non-free use rationale for File:Two of us sheet music.jpg lists that the cover art copyright is believed to belong to Warner Bros..

I think it would be better to see the full-resolution cover, so the publisher of this sheet music can be identified. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's not good enough. We're going to need a citation from a reliable source explicitly describing these covers as *the* US covers before they're safe to upload to Commons. Heck, even the uploader isn't 100% certain here given their use of "is believed" in the attribution statement. -Fastily 06:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a full-resolution version of these covers will likely be needed to identify the publisher of this sheet music. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that even matter when we're uncertain about the provenance of both images? You're putting the cart before the horse. -Fastily 02:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, it is clear that a logo is present on this sheet music cover. However, it is difficult to discern whom the logo represents (which would allow us to verify if it is of a UK or US company) at such a low resolution. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: I concur with @Fastily, in that simple sheet music is most likely ineligible for copyright, and as such the image in question can be relicensed dually as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-UK}}. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's contradictory. A file cannot be both {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-UK}} at the same time. -Fastily 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily My apologies, I noticed the contradiction right as you pointed it out. Would a dual licensing as {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-UK}} work instead? FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 29[edit]

File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 1 cover art.jpg[edit]

All four cover arts violate WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items). I would suggest using this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 1) and this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 2). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Replace: This is a clear-cut WP:NFCC#3a violation, and since alternatives exist that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose in half the number of images, there is no reason to keep the current image set. FHSIG13 ^TALK 08:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination. It's an excessive and inappropriate use of non-free material. Kys5g^talk! 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamie-and-adam-at-sv08.jpg[edit]

This appears to be a picture of the subjects on a jumbotron, an unacceptable derivative work. ✗plicit 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that we do not know if the audience was permitted to photograph the event at which the image in question was taken, the copyright status of that event (and so the image) is dubious at best. There also several other photographs of Savage & Hyneman in the article, so the loss of this one will not hurt the readers' understanding of the subject. FHSIG13 ^TALK 03:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brothers of Italy.svg[edit]

Italy has a very high TOO rating. Hogan Lovells states that "In summary, the threshold for an industrial design product to enjoy copyright protection is still quite high and even famous industrial design products have been denied such protection by Italian Courts". It also applies to logos too. Not only that, it also contains a PD derivative (Italian tricolor flame) from defunct Italian Social Movement's logo on Commons. Kys5g^talk! 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think such a logo would still be copyrighted in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: I believe there is sufficient originality in the shapes used in this logo to place it above US TOO. As such, the image in question will have to be relicensed as copyright and rationalized under fair-use for its' use on Wikipedia to be continued. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean {{PD-Italy}} + {{Possibly non-free in US}}? Kys5g^talk! 11:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kys5g No, I meant that I believe that the image in question should be relicensed as fully copyrighted, and that as such, a fair-use rationale proving that the current use of the image meets all 10 WP:NFCCP criteria will need to be applied or else the image would need to be deleted. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full copyright was already its current status. Kys5g^talk! 00:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kys5g My bad, not sure how I missed that. Armed with this new knowledge, I would still recommend maintaining the status quo, but also adding the license templates you suggested: {{PD-Italy}} + {{Possibly non-free in US}}. The addition of a fair-use rationale would still be required as well. FHSIG13 ^TALK 03:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leprince-spools-film1-lenscamera.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as this image does not significantly enhance the article. Also no actual fair use listed, which is required to demonstrate it meets all NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#8 due to lack of related sourced critical commentary in the article, as well as WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as I don't feel that the information contained in the bullet point section below the license template is sufficient to constitute a fair-use rationale. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: The author has died for 100 years ago, it should be public domain in both France and US now. Kys5g^talk! 11:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: Thanks to some great follow-up research by @Kys5g, my original rationale no longer applies. As such, I have struck my original vote and am changing it to recommend that the image be relicensed as Public Domain, per the above suggestion & rationale. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both relicense !votes above are wrong. This is a (poor quality) photograph of an invention by Louis Le Prince and the copyright resides with the copyright holder, not Louis Le Prince. The alleged source (http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/LE_PRINCE_JSMPTE.html) does not load for me, so I can't verify the image's provenance. Now if we treat this as a non-free image, then it does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. I've reviewed the text of the article and I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 08:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily The source site loaded for me, however it simply returned a Error 404-type result when it did so. That said, as a result of our current inability to verify who the copyright holder is and if their copyright is still valid, I will once again strike my vote and change it to recommend deletion, on the basis of unclear an source and licensing status. FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If said like @Fastily then it also fails the forth criterion (WP:NFCC#4) too. I think it lacks licensing information and will be deleted after satisfying conditions of CSD F4. Kys5g^talk! 11:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting it under conditions of CSD F4 would be better, because it lacks licensing information as @Fhsig13 said. Kys5g^talk! 05:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MemParkJaxLife.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no Freedom of Panorama for statues in the United States, so the image in question cannot be kept as free media without permission from the statues' copyright holder. That said, the articles that this image is currently being used in are not lists, so it could possibly be relicensed as {{Non-free 3D art}}. FHSIG13 ^TALK 23:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a derivative of non-free content. Statue was erected in 1924 according to the article about the sculptor; it's out of copyright in the US and therefore PD. -Fastily 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily Thank you very much for your great follow-up research. Now armed with the new knowledge that you provided, it is clear that my nomination is erroneous, and since the image in question will more than likely be speedy kept per Applicability point 3 for WP:SK, I am hereby requesting that my nomination be withdrawn per WP:WITHDRAWN, as this to me is now a snowball situation. FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 30[edit]

File:Disney+2024Logo.svg[edit]

No apparent to {{Keep local}}. RfD on commons was about it not being official but was proven otherwise. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Assuming that the {{Keep local}} request was only meant to be in place for the duration of the Commons RfD discussion, to ensure that the local copy was preserved for fair-use applications should the Commons version have been deleted, the image in question (the local copy) now meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY (despite what the template says), as the RfD closed as "Keep", making the image in question redundant to the Commons version. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 31[edit]

April 1[edit]

File:Marvin Gaye promotional photo.jpg[edit]

Not needed for any educational or critical purpose that justifies non-free media per WP:NFCC. You can maybe kinda/sorta argue that showing Gaye's public buttoned-up persona before his social and political turn in the 1970s is useful, but we have a clean-cut photo of him that is free File:Marvin Gaye 1966 (cropped).jpg. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Backyardigans logo.svg[edit]

Unless this logo is deemed to be below the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection (in which case it should be moved to Commons), this file likely violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items) as the logo is used in File:The-Backyardigans-characters.png, which is also displayed at The Backyardigans. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-Walkmen-The-Rat.ogg[edit]

De-PRODded file still neither an improvement to understanding The Rat (song) nor proof that free text inadequately educates readers about this song. In other words, neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Da doo ron ron.ogg[edit]

De-PRODded file still neither an improvement to understanding Da Doo Ron Ron nor proof that free text inadequately educates readers about this song. In other words, neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kate Bush The Sensual World Sample.ogg[edit]

De-PRODded file still neither an improvement to understanding The Sensual World (song) nor proof that free text inadequately educates readers about this song. In other words, neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash-(White Man) Palais.ogg[edit]

De-PRODded file still neither an improvement to understanding (White Man) In Hammersmith Palais nor proof that free text inadequately educates readers about this song, despite lyrics in this sample. In other words, neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable by free text. George Ho (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madness - Baggy Trousers.ogg[edit]

De-PRODded file still neither an improvement to understanding the whole song Baggy Trousers nor proof that free text inadequately educates readers about this song. In other words, neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable by free text. Furthermore, sample too long per MOS:SAMPLE, yet even shortened portion still would be neither contextually significant nor irreplaceable. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samples at Come Over When You're Sober, Pt. 2[edit]

More about individual tracks themselves than the whole album Come Over When You're Sober, Pt. 2. Unconvinced that the two samples represent the whole album and illustrate what the album is about. In other words, neither of them is contextually significant. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash-Complete Control.ogg[edit]

Even as de-PRODded file and after replacing prior revision with newer one, I still doubt that this sample is contextually significant to the rock song Complete Control and replaceable by free text, especially when rehearing the sample over and over. I can't think a valid reason that omitting the file from the project would harm the topic understanding, and I don't think hearing what the song sounds like in about twenty seconds is a valid reason to keep this sample. George Ho (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Beatles Stereo Box Set Image.png[edit]

Although this box set contains multiple non-free cover arts (and thus cannot be moved to Commons), someone could take a photo of the box set and release the photo under a free license, per WP:FREER. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deadearth rpg handbook.pdf[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

preservation Slinkyw (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 2[edit]

File:EP-IBU Airbus A300, April 1 1987.jpg[edit]

Is this really needed? Many other aircrafts involved in aviation incident(s) usually have image(s) of other jets used if there is no free equivalent that can be found. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many replicas of the airplane involved in this accident found free, including three-dimension graphic recreation. I'm sure it fails the first criterion and replaceable by a Commons free 3D replica. Kys5g^talk! 11:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg[edit]

Now that images containing the "Zoso" logo have been undeleted on Commons (DR discussion; diff), perhaps this image must be transferred to Commons as well. Particularly, the whole vinyl label has factual info about the official studio recordings themselves. Expression of such facts isn't original enough for copyright protection. Furthermore, other logos seen in the image are still in Commons. George Ho (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. So I agree. SethWhales^talk 16:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beyonce CowboyCarter tracklistposter.webp[edit]

This is a promotional poster and contains the track listing. The information is already contained in the track listing section. The omission of this poster does not harm the reader's understanding of the topic and could be easily explained in prose as already done in the article. Therefore it fails replicability and purpose of WP:NFCC. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's duplicate, blast it away as redundant and unused duplicates (CSD F1) and replaceable fair use (section C of CSD F7). Track listing has already in text so there's no need to use it anymore. Kys5g^talk! 11:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is April 2 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 2 – (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 "===April 2===" 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.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates