Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

1914–15 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#1914–15 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files are licensed as non-free historic images, but I am wondering whether they can be converted to public domain due to their age or for some other reason (e.g., lack of copyright notice, etc.). The source of the file is given as "University of Illinois Archives", but there is no other information provided. If for some reason these files cannot be converted to public domain and need to be treated as non-free, there's really no way to justify using both of them in the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since they essentially seem to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., identify the team) and neither photo is individually the subject of any sourced commentary within the article.

So, I suggest keep for both if the licensing of each can be converted to public domain, and delete for one of the files if they need to be treated as non-free. Which of the two files should be kept in the latter case is open for discussion, but "File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" being currently used in the infobox is of a better quality and actually identifies the members of the team, so it seems that this probably should be the one that is kept.

Finally, if only one of the files can be converted to public domain, that the one which cannot be converted should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tag both as public domain and move to Commons. The larger version of File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg should be undeleted as well. Looking at the bottom portion of the image, this image looks published at the time, i.e. 1914 or 1915. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete second and there images only. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images being used in 1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Unless these files can be converted to public domain because of their ages or because of some other reason, there is really no need for three non-free images of the same team to be used within the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. So, suggest keep for all three if they can be converted to public domain, and delete for two of the three if all three cannot be converted. Which of the three should be deleted is open to debate, but "File:1941–42 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" is currently being used in the infobox to identify the team, so the other two seem to be unnecessary. If, however, only one of the files can be converted to public domain and the other two cannot, then the non-free files should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1925 William Preston.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: remove from Walsall by-election, 1925. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Walsall by-election, 1925. Can this file's licensing be converted to public domain due to its age or for some other reason? If it can, then it would not be subject to WP:NFCC. If not, then I'm not sure how its usage in the by-election article satisfies WP:NFCCP, and the file would be must better suited for William Preston (British politician) instead per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Typically, non-free images of deceased politicians have been considered OK in stand-alone articles about the politician because the file serves as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. However, the same has not been the case with respect to using such files in articles about specific elections or list articles because the usage tends to be a little more decorative and not really something needed for the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This file's licensing should not be converted to public domain because of its age. To be regarded as public domain it needs to have been published before 1923 and the source clearly states that it was published in 1925. The only way we should change its licensing is if we discover subsequently that it was published before 1923.Graemp (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason other than age that might make it possible to convert the file to public domain? Otherwise, its non-free use only seems appropriate in the stand-alone article about Preston and not in the election article per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Walsall by-election, 1925 per WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Item 10 of WP:NFCI says that free use is acceptable for "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person..." We should not interpret item 10 as meaning 'only pictures in their stand-alone article'. If it was meant to mean 'only pictures in their stand-alone article' then item 10 would say something like "Pictures of deceased persons, in the article about that person..." or some similar wording that either specifically uses the word biography or talks about an article in the singular form. The article the image is being used in, is an article about the subject's first election to parliament, so it is most certainly an "article about that person", which means that it meets NFCI#10. It is acceptable under WP:NFCI for a non-free image like this to be used in more than one article. The policy concerns itself with minimal use rather than singular use. There is no reason why this image can not be added to the stand-alone about Preston, so long as an additional fair use rationale is provided. Graemp (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of "an article about that person" when it comes to the by-election article. The stand-alone article about Preston is clearly from beginning to end about him as a person. It covers or is supposed the cover the more significant aspects of his life from birth to death, so in this sense using a non-free image of him as the primary means of identifiction makes sense per WP:NFCCP. On the other hand, the by-election article is not really an article about Preston per se, but rather an article about an event Preston is associated with. The entire context of the article is not devoted to a discussion of Preston; he is only discussed in the context of election and the particular image of him is not discussed at all which is problematic per WP:NFCC#8.

I think the non-free use of this type of image is not too different from the non-free use of an album cover. Such a non-free image is generally considered acceptable as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the particular album because the entire context of the article is devoted to a discussion of the album itself, but generally not considered acceptable in other related articles where the particular album is only mentioned in a larger context as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-2. I am not saying it's impossible to ever justify such usage, only that the justification for that type of non-free use tends to be much harder because it is generally considered that the image itself needs to be the subject of some sourced commentary within the article to satisfy NFCC#8. This does not seem to be the case with respect to this particular by-election article, at least not as currently written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCI#10 does not stipulate the extent to which an article should relate to that person. It clearly accepts that more than one article can be about a given person and as the victor in the by-election, Preston is the central figure in the by-election article. It need not matter that the image of Preston is not referred to in the by-election article. It provides the same contextual significance as it would do in the article about Preston, thus meeting NFCC#8. WP:NFC#cite_note-2 specifically applies to cover art, and only cover art. It therefore should not really be applied to deceased persons, which are specifically governed by section 10. Graemp (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFCI#10 just gives an example of types of non-free image use; it does not necessarily mean that non-free use is automatic in each and every one of those cases. The particular use of the file still has to satisfy all 10 of the WP:NFCCP, which is what governs non-free image use. In this particular case, I agree with Finnusertop that there are NFCC#8 issues with respect to the file's use in the by-laws article and the little written about Preston in that article does not in my opinion justify such usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFCI#10 does not give an example of type of use. It says "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person". It therefore should not be used as guidance to remove any non-free image used more than once. If the image passes NFCC#8 in an article about Preston then it should pass NFCC#8 in the by-election article, because it is the same image, providing identical contextual significance in an article about that person. How much that is written about an individual is not offered and should not be taken as guidance regarding use of historical portraits. Were that to be the case, we would need to remove a lot of images from a lot of stub articles. Graemp (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My last post was worded poorly at the beginning so I apologize if it was confusing. What I meant is that the 10 NFCI are just examples of different types of non-free usage generally considered acceptable, and NFCI#10 is just one of those examples. The fact that a non-free image's use may be justified in one article does not automatically mean that the same justification also extends to other articles. The use of the image to illustrate an entry about Preston in a list article, a notable alumni/resident section or part of a stand-alone article about one of his contemporaries would not simply be allowed just because the file's use is OK for Preston's stand-alone article. The Preston article is entirely about him as a person and the context NFCC#8 comes from everything written in the article; I don't think the same can be said about the by-election article. Non-free use is not justified simply because of an image may be WP:HISTORIC; historic portraits are still required to satisfy all 10 NFCCP for each usage. Moreover, the argument that there may be lots of similar images which would also need to be deleted/removed from stub articles if this one is removed sounds a bit like WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:DELETEALL. How does the use of this particular image in the by-election article, an article in which the file is not being used as the primary means of identifying the subject of the article, significantly increase the reader's understanding of the by-election to such a degree that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding? I think this is the question which needs to be answered with respect to the by-election article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP clearly accepts that a non-free historic portrait can be used in more than just one article (the stand alone) about an individual. An article specifically about this politician's first election to parliament (the by-election), represents the most significant aspect of his life, in which he was obviously the central character. The by-election is unquestionably an article about him referred to in NFCI#10. The image in the by-election article fulfills the role of increasing the reader's understanding of Preston in exactly the same way and to the same extend as it would in his stand-alone article. Graemp (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from all articles except the bio. Obvious and undeniable failure to satisfy NFCC#8; you do not need to see a picture of a candidate to understand that they ran in a particular election. This has been hashed out over and over, and, as I recall, an editor who persistently violated this principle (with regard to Italian parliamentary election pages, as I recall) ended up being blocked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harrison-hubert.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as PD but no evidence of authorship/license/origins/first publication at listed source czar 13:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a general copyright disclaimer from the source website. The New York Public Library, however, is inconclusive about the copyright status [1]. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that marxists.anu.edu.au doesn't list the source books, etc., so it's impossible to verify the copyright status of their images... Even with the NYPL listing, there isn't any proof of first publication czar 02:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kmayburysnp.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This violates NFCC No. 8 as it does not contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the article. Moreover, a coloured version of the non-free portrait photograph is already being used in the infobox. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing that the story made the front page of a major newspaper was worth consideration? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NFRS Logo123.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicense as non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third party logo, This version may be self, but the underlying logo design possibly isn't. See http://www.norfolkfireservice.gov.uk/nfrs/ Verbcatcher (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to "non-free logo". Salavat (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexander B. Rossino - Hitler Strikes Poland (cover).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NFCI policy guideline lists the most common cases where non-free images may be used (#1): "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).[1]" Meanwhile, WP:NFC#UUI (#9) states that "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." I uploaded this file to illustrate Alexander B. Rossino article and provided sourced commentary for it, in a stand-alone section of the article, devoted to this book. I believe I have met all the requirements as requested, but the file is being removed now, in a protracting edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz under his claim that the inclusion of it is an NFCC violation. Please comment on our disagreement here. Thanks in advance. [2][3][4][5] Poeticbent talk 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP omits critical language from the annotation to the NFCI text they cite: "NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author". Further, merely describing the cover is not providing critical commentary. That's particularly true in this specific case, where the meaning of the descriptive text is quite clear, and the image does no more than illustrate a clear description -- unmistakeably failing NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know what you think "critical commentary" means. Needless to say, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Now, lets see what others have to say about that. Poeticbent talk 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually arguing that "critical commentary" does not require any elements of criticism or analysis? Because by that argument just saying "Meryl Streep wore a red dress to the Academy Awards" would justify the use of a nonfree image of Streep. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "Alexander B. Rossino": I think Hullaballoo Wolwitz makes a good point when it comes to WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If the cover art is being used to simply show what the cover looks likes, then that would be decorative use that is not really allowed per WP:NFCC#8. What is needed is some critical discussion of cover art itself (not just a mere description) that can be sourced to a reliable source or sources. If the book was notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NBOOK, then the cover art would be used as the primary means of identifying the book in question and thus the context required by NFCC#8 would come from the entire article. In this particular case, the subject is not the book, but rather the author which in my opinion means NFCC#8 is a harder to justify. This Amazon link shows the cover, but that's about it. The other source cited is not in English, but according to Google Translate it also doesn't appear to be specifically about the cover art itself. There is a possibility that the photos used in the cover art may have fallen into the public domain, but I'm not sure quite how this would affect the copyright status of the cover art. The rest of the cover art look just like simple font and text which is usually not illegible for copyright protection, but whether the way the photos were arranged is considered creative per c:COM:DW is not so clear. So, unless the cover art can be converted to PD or a free license, I do see any justification for its use in the author's article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tracker logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo without article. Cloudbound (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arlie Neaville.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed from Arlie Neaville by an Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and cited as failing WP:NFC#UUI, although it gives non-free use rationale for every parameter necessary. I disagree with this assessment, but would like to open it up for comment prior to final removal or restoration to the page. Garchy (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale says that an alternative image is unlikely to be found, but per our non-free fair use criteria, there is always the theoretical possibility of take a photograph of a living person and release it under a free licence. So this part of the fair use rationale is flawed, or incomplete at least, and I can see why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed the image from the article. One could argue though that this particular photo shows him in his typical contemporary "Dean Carter" outfit and that would in fact be hard to replace today. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the image should be returned to the article. As a result of the removal, it is now orphaned. Its fair use rationale is strong enough to warrant inclusion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As De728631 pointed out, Neville is still living so in that sense using a non-free image just to identify him would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. There is also no sourced article content about his particular look to justify it's use per WP:NFCC#8. The fact that an image will be orphaned if removed is not really a sufficient justification to keep a non-free file and simply filling in all the parameters of a non-free use rational template does not automatically mean the rationale is compliant with policy. What needs to be established is whether the file's use satisfies all 10 of WP:NFCCP, and it this particular it I don't think it does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Marchjuly and De728361 are pretty much on target/ I'd also note that, for a musician whose career began in the later 1950's, it's probably likely that there are newspaper and magazine images (perhaps even record sleeves) whose copyrights were never renewed, as well as publicity photos circulated without appropriate copyright notices. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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