Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_August_14 References

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

File:Nauka Module Launch Mission Patch.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth - FASTILY 02:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a copyrighted mission insignia that is claimed to provide a primary means of visual identification on the Nauka (ISS module) page, despite the fact that numerous free-use images exist that are fit to serve that purpose; most notably File:Nauka docked to ISS.jpg, which already currently serves as the primary means of identification. It also doesn't serve to adequately illustrate anything in the article; the insignia itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to gain its own coverage, let alone serve any meaningful purpose in the context of Nauka's launch that could be disseminated in the article text. Therefore, it's likely that the image file is not up to scratch with WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. — Molly Brown ( talk) 00:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

is the soyuz patches and soyuz crew portrait same. if not then why are you are comparing the launch logo with spacecraft images. clear this first. as they are different the information given by them are different. so i am with to keep the logo on wikipedia. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. The Template:Non-free logo, used on 157,000+ pages, states that "The use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States." -- Ras67 ( talk) 21:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Ras67: This is just a statement as to how non-free logos are used, and not an argument for or against this image being a proper use of a non-free logo... — Molly Brown ( talk) 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. While a violation of NFCC #1 could be argued, this image absolutely fails NFCC #8 because this logo is purely decorative in nature and provides neither useful identification of the subject nor critical commentary on the subject. Likewise, nothing in the article discusses the logo's relevance nor does the logo facilitate the relevance of the article. — Huntster ( t @ c) 12:57, 15 August 2021 (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:48-The-Southern-Fish.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, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dubious own-work claims. These were locally uploaded in September 2019, but can be found on various Tumblr posts ( themanuchihrglobe.tumblr.com) from January 2019. As this is a globe, a faithful 2D reproduction is not possible. The person who took these retains the rights of their photos. ✗ plicit 01:20, 14 August 2021 (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:Abraham Perry.jpeg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Per COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama extends only to buildings in the United States. Copyrighted text on signs is not covered. ✗ plicit 01:33, 14 August 2021 (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:Adamstein yoyoma.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dubious own-work claim, can be found on IMDb in a much larger resolution (833 × 598). ✗ plicit 01:44, 14 August 2021 (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:Mullah Muhammad Rasul.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: Original image moved to File:Mullah Muhammad Rasul (AP-VOA).jpg and deleted as a textbook case of WP:CSD#F7 (AP image). No comment on the replacement uploaded by Alexis Jazz; any concerns regarding this image should be raised in a new FfD. - FASTILY 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:NFCI#UUI #1 disallows non-free images of people still alive. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep You know, maybe this isn't the place to discuss the issue, but Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. The man is a terrorist and a member of the Taliban, for God sakes. Any person attempting to take a photo of this man is risking their life, and that is absolutely not a reasonable expectation of a volunteer editor. Therefore, this image is not reasonably replaceable, and should remain unless someone miraculously finds a free image. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 08:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Oiyarbepsy, There are plenty of people in Afghanistan who are quite supportive of the Taliban, and he will be very much in the public view in the near future. The man's not inherently dangerous for anyone to be around. Regardless, we don't have a "dangerous living person" exception to WP:NFC#UUI. You are correct that this is not the place to discuss the issue. You'll need to go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to propose such an exception, which would affect countless articles. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Oiyarbepsy, I'm not opposed to creating such an exception. Although, I think in this case, the risk has been somewhat exaggerated. The Taliban gave an interview to CNN, for goodness sake. They're not that hostile to anyone holding a camera. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

In this particular case, Rasul is not a member of the Taliban, but of a breakaway group based on his opposition to the Taliban's previous leader, and a group that tried to assassinate the Taliban's current leader. With the main Taliban in control of the country, I'd go into hiding if I was him. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 08:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I suppose that's a good reason to keep in this case, because it's specific to his situation. As long as we're not making blanket exceptions, I'm good. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Leaning to keep, but due to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 #7 (A photo from a press agency or photo agency) I have overwritten the image which according to VOA was from AP with the photo from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2009/1/31/taliban-warns-us-over-afghan-plan. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 08:24, 22 August 2021 (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:Gujarat Literature Festival 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: withdrawn by nominator. ✗ plicit 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Orphaned; superseded by File:GLF GUJARATI LOGO.svg. — Pbrks ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Pbrks, "Gujarat" is written using the Latin alphabet in this one. Frankly as this is the version displayed on http://gujlitfest.org/ while File:GLF GUJARATI LOGO.svg is from "Facebook page of Gujarat Literature Festival" without any link provided (and http://gujlitfest.org/ doesn't seem to link Facebook either), I'll just put File:Gujarat Literature Festival logo.png back on the article. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 10:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I withdraw my nomination - File is no longer orphaned, and an English logo is more appropriate. — Pbrks ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2021 (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:Robert nesta morgan.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Stated to be own work but is obviously a publicity shot. See this use in a newspaper prior to upload here. WP:VRT confirmation would be required. Whpq ( talk) 13:02, 14 August 2021 (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:Ending Story sample.ogg

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, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Non-free audio sample that is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. The stated purpose is a vague description of the file and not an actual purpose. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 13:15, 14 August 2021 (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:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg

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 on 2021 September 5. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Health Care Property Investors 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, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Orphaned; superseded by File:Health Care Property Investors Logo.svg. — Pbrks ( talk) 17:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat ( talk) 08:33, 15 August 2021 (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.

Beethoven by Artur Schnabel

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 in favor of using the Commons copies - FASTILY 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Used on Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven). Also on Commons:

But the local files are used under a fair use rationale which makes no sense. There is no need to use any particular performance so either use a freely licensed performance or something that's in the public domain. Artur Schnabel's performance actually does appear to be in the public domain, so just use the Commons files. It's also PD in the US I think if that's what the uploader was worried about, because ~~per Directive 2006/116/EC~~ (edit: actually you'd have to consider the law in Germany in 1996 which is probably Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 but this is 50 years after publication as well so tomayto, tomahto) the copyright expired in 1983 meaning the copyright wasn't restored by the URAA. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 20:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Alexis Jazz: I'm not really sure what's going on here copyright-wise. I was told for my FAC to find a PD-US rationale for the recordings on WikiMedia, but PD-US-record states that any work published in 1932 doesn't have its copyright expire until 2032. Unless there's a PD-US rationale tag I missed on WikiMedia that could be used for these files, the only way to pass the FAC media review it seems is to upload these files as non-free. GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

GeneralPoxter, I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)/archive1 and c:Template:PD-US-record. You are looking for c:Template:PD-1996, see c:Commons:Hirtle chart. @ Clindberg: PD-US-record is only for US records I assume? {{ PD-1996}} would take precedence over PD-US-record, no? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

All right, thanks for the help. I think that works, and the files could be set up for deletion now then. GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

GeneralPoxter, I made an error. According to the source these recordings were made by His Master's Voice. That would make them British, but it would fall under the same Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 so tomayto, tomahto in that case. If "His Master's Voice" is actually meant to refer to the Victor Talking Machine Company (or it was published in the US within 30 days), there's c:COM:RENEWAL and searching for the name "Artur Schnabel" yields no results which would mean (if the recordings are American or published in the US within 30 days) c:Template:PD-US-not renewed except in this case you would be right and c:Template:PD-US-record (I strangely completely missed this discussion on Commons at the time) should be followed and the recording would still be under copyright protection. Clindberg, I think I need Aspirin. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I am exceedingly confused. Is this saying that there is reason to keep using the sound files uploaded under fair use? GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

GeneralPoxter, that's the only question I can answer with certainty: no. It doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 as you could play and record Beethoven yourself and release your performance with a free license. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 00:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Okay, understood. GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pre-1972 sound recordings are (were) a mess in the U.S. -- it was technically common-law copyright, with every state having their own precedents. The general opinion was that any commercial-type recording was likely still under that common-law copyright, especially if it was being sold/marketed anywhere. I suspect that the new law extended any copyrights, even foreign, such that the dates of expiration in {{ PD-US-record}} are when the copyrights will expire in the U.S., be it a U.S. work or foreign. So, the URAA may not matter much when it comes to sound recordings. That new law did bring some clarity/sanity to the situation, but we will need to wait a bit longer than normal for them. Carl Lindberg ( talk) 02:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help Clindberg. I'll update the article and FAC nom accordingly. GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 August 2021 (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.