Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 0 3 52 55
TfD 0 0 1 7 8
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 3 5 8
RfD 0 0 16 61 77
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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 18}} 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 18}} 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 18}} 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 8

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]

  • Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

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) Replace with a screengrab from Hell Bent (preferably around 0:06), per GLL. DWF91 (talk) 22:01, 13 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 5

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]

February 1

File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg

[edit]

File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Camilasdandelions (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука13 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The digital/streaming release's cover art is more provocative and more revealing than the CD/vinyl one. Omit this (CD/vinyl) cover art, and you'd be left with the more provocative and revealing cover art. Furthermore, neither CD nor vinyl is a dead format (yet), despite their lack of prominence compared to their own heydays.
Also, it's not like Rebel Heart, whose main artwork shows the musician's/artist's face wrapped in wires and is less provocative and revealing than this (other) album's. Well, it's not like Love for Sale (Boney M. album) either, which has critical commentary. I even nominated its alternative cover to FFD just once, and the result was "kept". Nonetheless, even artworks lacking critical commentary may still be contextually significant to the album and its releases/editions. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This cover is absolutely different from its original cover and even though it doesn't contain any logo, at least it contains a singer's face. Also the vinyl cover is important information for album infobox, so it has to be kept.Camilasdandelions (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your removal of the FFD tag done early this month. It's not WP:PROD, so I insist you refrain from re-removing the FFD tag amid ongoing discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm very unfamiliar at file deletion discussion, and there was no opinions for a time so I deleted, but I'll not do that again.
When this discussion will be ended? Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FFD discussions are supposed to stay open for a minimum of seven days, absent some serious need to close them sooner. Basically, the discussion continues until a consensus is established one way or the other. An administrator (or uninvolved non-administrator) will eventually review the discussion and decide if it should be it should be closed or allowed to continue. If you feel the discussion has gone on long enough, you can request that someone take a look at it by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. If you feel after reading the comments left by others that your posistion on the file's non-free use has changed, you can strikethrough your "Keep" WP:!Vote as explained in WP:REDACT and request that the file be deleted instead. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait until an administrator gets around to reviewing the discussion and decides to close it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC 3a and 8 because only one album cover is needed for an infobox. Deletion should be without prejudice to there being discussion on the article talk page about which cover should be used to represent the album, using dispute resolution processes if necessary. "This image is more aesthetically pleasing" is not a reason to keep an image. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; the inclusion of the secondary cover is not needed to enhance a visitor's knowledge of the subject. An incline citation, explaining the differences, within the article's body would more than suffice. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just now added hopefully detailed info about the digital/streaming artwork, citing Associated Press, NME magazine, and People magazine. Still seeking reliable sources covering the artwork. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this deletion discussion about the CD and vinyl version? I'm not sure how that fixes the issue with this image. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how that fixes the issue with this image. I'm doing my best, especially with the singer's opinion about the digital/streaming (main) cover art being replaced with an alternative cover in certain areas, but it seems that you think a digital/streaming (main) cover suffices. I guess we interpret the NFCC differently.
    Sure, as applicable as this consistent precedent, other album articles can't normally use more than one cover art. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored, and even certain "offensive materials" can be encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I'm uncertain whether readers would fully understand what the whole album is about without this alternative cover.
    When they are shown the (other) main cover, readers unfamiliar with behind-the-scenes stuff within the project and those who are very new would wonder why and how the singer chose to very closely resemble The Birth of Venus and why any other (less offensive) alternative covers aren't used and whether such (less offensive) alternative covers exist. But if you like to treat the album article as (almost?) no different from any other, then I can't stop you. George Ho (talk) 20:05, 30 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]

  • @Pppery: May this be relisted at the newest log instead? Needs more visibility. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's up to the next admin to look at it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first closure but before the reopening, I exemplified this discussion in the following venues about general matter raised by Buffs: WT:NFC and WP:VPP. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant fail of WP:NFCC #3a and #8. The idea that we should keep it because we'd be left only with provocative cover art simply isn't a reason for keep, and frankly doesn't make sense. Further, the idea that we should keep it because it's different is also false. There's no wiggle room in WP:NFCC or WP:NFC because something is 'different'. There's no sourced commentary about this edition's artwork, while there is about the main image. There's no valid justification for keeping this image when there's no such sourced commentary. To the closer of this FfD; note that a no consensus decision means we delete the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 17 February 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]

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 11

[edit]

File:1928–29 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg

[edit]
File:1928–29 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rhino83166 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file looks like it would have been published in the 1929 edition of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign yearbook. I think the hidden version can be undeleted and moved to Commons. Brought to FfD rather than requests for undeletion because a review thinks there is no evidence of publication before 1930. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & mark as PD I think it's pretty clear that it's a yearbook photo. Even if it was a standalone photo, it was clearly first published in 1929 in the US and that's clearly PD. AAAAAAAND even if it was 1930+, I see no evidence in copyright records of such a photo or yearbook registered & maintained as required. It's PD. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. No evidence of publication before 1930. No evidence that the photo was published after without copyright notice. — Ирука13 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

[edit]

February 12

[edit]

File:Tinashe - 333 (Deluxe edition cover).png

[edit]
File:Tinashe - 333 (Deluxe edition cover).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Camilasdandelions (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's kinda pity of you that trying to target one user and make disruptions. As Tinashe released deluxe edition and its lead single, so there's no reason to delete this file. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been warned about WP:NPA. Stop. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll be blunt. I'm really wary about stepping in here, but it seems as good a point as any other to weigh into the fray of alternate covers. This one is one of the cleanest to choose from. I do not think we should have anything more than the primary album cover/primary single cover on an album/song (respectively). Yes, there may be deluxe editions or special editions or ____ editions, but unless there is significant commentary about more than one cover in particular, we should stick with the single image of the most prominent cover. Anything more than that fails WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the lead single of deluxe edition released, "Naturally", so for my opinion it should be kept still. Why The Secret of Us by Gracie Abrams has no problem on this? It's same case as Tinashe's 333. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a reasonable debate, thank you. There may be others (in fact, I'm 100% certain there definitely are). This standard applies to more than one article with this issue, but that doesn't mean we're keeping one and removing another. It just means we're starting here. As I noted above, I've refrained from weighing in on albums until now, so this is the first I've weighed in on...gotta start somewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sound argument for retention. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFCC criteria 3a and 8 apply. Also, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an extra cover is OK if "is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original". An album release can have multiple covers and it's the norm. Ippantekina (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jewish weapons discovered.jpg

[edit]
File:Jewish weapons discovered.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jim Sweeney (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:British Forces in the Middle East, 1945-1947 E32045.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 01:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:TirailleursSenegalais.jpg

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

A lower quality scan of a photograph by the same name on Commons: c:File:TirailleursSenegalais.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minute to Win It.jpg

[edit]
File:Minute to Win It.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eric Carpenter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC3. The logo would suffice, not a portrait of Guy Fieri above that logo. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:You Suck at Cooking (YouTube) logo.webp

[edit]
File:You Suck at Cooking (YouTube) logo.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hameltion (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:You Suck At Cooking title card.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 23:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

[edit]

File:Sinfest 2024-12-20.png

[edit]
File:Sinfest 2024-12-20.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kizor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't meet the NFCC. This specific strip hasn't been the subject of RS commentary Traumnovelle (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Water (I know your name!!! ;-) ). If you could specify it would help. In general, I think it's ok to post a SINGLE image to get what the comic looks like. Not having it really leads the reader to wonder. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did images of the media that have no commentary meet NFCC? This is just another attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy to POV-push. Non-free content for media should have coverage to justify why this specific snippet is relevant to the reader's understanding, but this one doesn't and was selectively chosen not based on the reader's understanding but solely to POV-push. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, sourced commentary is only specifically required for non-free images or media from a press or photo agency (ref WP:NFCCE and WP:F7) and that doesn't apply here. You have also quoted WP:IMGCONTENT, but NFCCP#8 fulfils that. Would you please identify exactly which one or more of the ten NFCCP criteria you believe this image to fail on and how? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the description of the image 'It's perhaps worth noting that this image does not describe or represent the comic's writing and subject matter ten or twenty years ago', so how is it a representative image then if it only pertains to a specific timeline of the comic, one that is not discussed in much if any detail at all in the article. It'd make the most sense to show panels from the era with the most commentary. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Sinfest has been noted for its shifting content/tone/style, I believe that four panels would actually be usefully representative (Daily Bruin, early 2000s webcomic, radfem shift, recent shift). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you're noting that has been referred to was from a more offensive/crude comic to a feminist one. This image does not illustrate that. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG

[edit]
File:Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: Unnecessary non-free scan of a newspaper. A scan of a newspaper article is not really needed to understand that the newspaper published a certain story at the time. Using texts and Wikipedia:Citing sources is enough. Wcam (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newspaper isn't subject of commentary (although even if it were that wouldn't necessarily be justification for an image versus a link to it) Traumnovelle (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracie Abrams Secret of Us Deluxe.jpg

[edit]
File:Gracie Abrams Secret of Us Deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by This0k (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject and there is no there is significant commentary about more than one cover. A single image of the most prominent cover is sufficient. Anything more than that fails WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't subject of any commentary and is just an alternate cover Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin Jenkins Oakland Councilmember.png

[edit]
File:Kevin Jenkins Oakland Councilmember.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salv007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File is uses the CA Gov PD tag which claims it's a work of the State of California and therefore in the public domain in the U.S. The stated author and the apparent source are the City of Oakland, not the State of California. I am not deeply familiar with this particular piece of copyright law, but I do know that there is a general legal difference between the two entities. If this ruling also applies to local government works (and not just state works), wonderful! ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

[edit]

File:Taylor Swift – August lyric video title card.png

[edit]
File:Taylor Swift – August lyric video title card.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JohnCWiesenthal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not sure if this photo satisfies WP:NFCC and justifies its usage for Template:Infobox song. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is derived from the official lyric video for the song and is similar to what is currently used to illustrate "Word Crimes". I think they are similar to sheet music covers like those currently illustrating many Beatles songs, even though I feel that those fail the NFCC more than files like this due to the lack of international standardization. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binge (Bangladeshi OTT) logo.png

[edit]
File:Binge (Bangladeshi OTT) logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diptadg17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Binge.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 13:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphony Mobile logo.png

[edit]
File:Symphony Mobile logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Farhansnigdho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:Logo of Symphony Mobile.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 13:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

[edit]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication? No source is provided in the Italian Wikipedia upload.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp

[edit]
File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EF5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since the CSD was challenged: This file is replacable as I recently found a CCTV image of the tornado (File:Cullman tornado CCTV.jpg, rendering this useless. EF5 03:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quba Mosque.jpg

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

I'd say that File:Quba Mosque.JPG is a better alternative than this as it isn't tilted. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a need to have 2 files, which are tagged as {{PD-USonly}}, showing the same subject without any vast differences. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This file is currently being used. One file has higher resolution and shows more of the building and one is better framed. I do not see one as being unambiguously better than the other. I do not know exactly how many images we have of the Quba Mosque on en.wikipedia, but it is not an unreasonable number (far closer to a dozen than a hundred) considering that Commons will not host them and this is a super notable building in Islamic history. It is better to give future editors more editorial choice rather than less. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

[edit]

File:KUNA15.png

[edit]
File:KUNA15.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wcquidditch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Speedy delete: Superceded by c:File:KUNA 2018.svg on Commons Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunflow eg.png

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

SunFlow is licensed under the MIT license (and so is its logo). Then why did the uploader copyright something that THEY made? 67.209.129.191 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarahmiles.jpg

[edit]
File:Sarahmiles.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xanthi22 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC #8; there's no strong reason presented why an image of this person from a 1980s movie significantly contributes to readers' understanding of the subject. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KBLR Logo 2018.png

[edit]
File:KBLR Logo 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ItsJustdancefan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Speedy delete: Superceded by c:File:Telemundo Las Vegas 2018.webp Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

[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]
If you feel that an image of Luke Skywalker from the sequel trilogy should be featured in the article, please consider adding a still of him with sufficient commentary (WP:NFCC#8) to the sequel trilogy section. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Someday - Glass Tiger.jpg

[edit]
File:Someday - Glass Tiger.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Saviourofthe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

De-PRODding rationale was this: would appear to be the primary cover art for the release. Nonetheless, being the top cover art isn't an excuse for concerns about exceeding minimal number of NFC files needed and its contextual significance to Someday (Glass Tiger song). From what I learned, the band is Canadian, and the Canadian releases use the same alternative cover art (discogs) instead of this nominated one. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShaggyRogers.png

[edit]
File:ShaggyRogers.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grapesoda22 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:Shaggy MultiVersus.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current 2D image is the most common style used for the character, from the original series and numerous other incarnations. This would make it the ideal image to represent the character as a whole. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

[edit]

File:UNCG Julius Foust Building.jpg

[edit]
File:UNCG Julius Foust Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Erlawrim (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyright statement on original web source/page of the page said the file can only used for "personal, educational or research purposes only", that is not a free licence and thus cannot upload to the Commons. Also, free licence files are available to the Julius Foust Building. Saimmx (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Today is February 18 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 18 – (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 18===" 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=1275776476"