Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 21

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⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajaumarhassan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raja umar hassan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Clearly watermarked image suggesting a studio image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2015 (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.

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⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rais Neza Boneza.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rais29 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This seems to be an unused profile photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2015 (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.

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: keep intertitle image. — ξ^xplicit 02:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makin It tv series.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

File:Makin It tv series intertitle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)

I am now using the promo ad and the opening title images in the article just for discussion. Shall we keep the ad or the opening title? George Ho (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the template that you added to the TV series article is clearly marked for use on file pages only. It shouldn't be used in articles. Secondly, this issue is really better discussed on the article talk page or at WT:TV. The consensus of that project has long been to use the intertitle, which is something of which you are aware. Both of the images are non-free so, as a choice between a non-free promo and a non-free intertitle, the intertitle is what should be used. Naturally, as a result of that the promo ad, which is not used anywhere else, should then be tagged as orphaned and subsequently deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:25, 8 December 2015 (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.

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 Emma Smith Kennedy. — ξ^xplicit 02:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:What's the use of going through with the Election.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jorfer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File is being used in two articles: United States presidential election, 1948 and Emma Smith Kennedy. Usage appears WP:NFCC OK for the election article, but clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 for Emma Kennedy Smith. There's no critical discussion of the image itself within the article and it is definitely not needed "To demonstrate the significance of a prediction by Emma Smith Kennedy that Truman would win" when the same thing could be done and is done by the wikilink to aforementioned "United States presidential election, 1948". The image is certainly more relevant to the cartoonist Clifford K. Berryman, if the caption for the image in the Kennedy article is true, but it's not being used there. Image has no direct connection to Emma Smith Kennedy and the indirect association implied by using the image is WP:OR. Usage is purely decorative and it should be removed from the Kennedy article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the article Clifford K. Berryman, the artist worked for The Washington Star. Is this where the picture was first published? According to this page, no issues of The Washington Star were renewed, so pictures from that newspaper should normally be in the public domain if published before 1964 per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The page contains a warning: 'contributions renewed at least as far back as Sep. 23, 1923'. Therefore, some contributions to the newspaper were renewed, and even if we can show that this was first published in The Washington Star, we'd need to check if this is one of those contributions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. So, if it's "PD-US-not-renewed", then no problem with using it in "Emma Smith Kennedy". If it's non-free, then remove it from the Kennedy article. Is that about the gist of it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2015 (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.

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⚡ 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Ainu People.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chakazul (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Would this non-free flag image satisfy {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-USonly}} or something similar. It was being used in Ethnic flag, but I removed it per WP:NFG. If it's OK as public domain, then it could be re-added since WP:NFCC would no longer be applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The artwork on the flag seems too complex for PD-ineligble in USA. It could maybe be ineligible for copyright as a 'utilitarian object' in the source country. Japanese courts seem to slap {{PD-useful-object}} on some things which are considered to be non-utilitarian in the United States. That said, it would still be unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so it's not PD. Can a valid non-free rationale for it be written for Ethnic flag? It wasn't being discussed at all in the article; It was just displayed in the gallery Ethnic flag#East Asia with the caption "Ainu people[27] (Hokkaidō, Kuril Islands and Sakhalin)" and this cited as a source. There may be a way to incorporate it into "Ainu people", but I'm not sure how to best do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethnic flag is essentially a gallery of flags. I can't see any room for non-free flags in that article per WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree with your assessment. Removing the flag will make it an orphan and this will eventually lead to its deletion per WP:F5 if it does not find another home. Do you think there's a way to write a valid non-free use rationale for "Ainu people"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It depends on how the flag is used by the Ainu community. Is this a commonly used flag? I have never been to Hokkaidō, Karafuto or Chishima, and there are almost no Ainu people in other parts of Japan. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure how common it is. I've never seen it used anywhere in Japan or on Japanese TV, etc., but I've also have never been to any areas of the country associated with the Ainu. The editor who uploaded the flag was notified of this discussion on their user talk, but so far they have not responded. If they or anyone else does not provide further clarification and the consensus is to remove it from "Ethnic flag", then it will be tagged with F5 and eventually deleted as an orphan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi there I'm the uploader. Without this flag, that part of the page will become empty and make the page incomplete, I then re-uploaded the flag. I'm not an expert in copyright issues so I'm not sure you are talking about copyright of the image file or the flag itself. For the image file, it seems the website's copyright page implies that it can be used in non-commercial and unaltered way with attribution. For the flag itself, the flag's page states it "was designed by the late Mr Bikki Sunazawa in 1973" so we can no longer ask the designer himself. By the way, flags are meant to be displayed, so it seems odd to me if a flag cannot be displayed (unless it's a company's private flag, etc). --Chakazul (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2015 (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.

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 Indigenous Australians. — ξ^xplicit 02:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrwsc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Could this be licensed as public domain as {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-USonly}} or something similar. It's currently being used in a number of different article and has rationales for each. I removed it from Flag of Australia per WP:NFG, but wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg; The usage in Indigenous Australians, however, still seems problematic and was not resolved in that NFCR discussion. If this can be changed to public domain, then WP:NFCC would no longer be of any concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain as unfree - The flag is still copyrightable in Australia. Also, the shape forming a U upside down may help the flag surpass threshold of originality in the US. If you disagree, then tag it as "{{PD-ineligible-USonly}}" as Commons won't allow this flag to be uploaded under jurisdiction of home country. --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Do you have any opinion on the non-free usage in Indigenous Australians? The archived NFCR discussion did not really resolve that particular usage and it does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we were to remove this file from the infobox in Indigenous Australians we'd have to remove the Aboriginal flag as well, since not to do so would mislead readers into believing that the Aboriginal flag represents all indigenous Australians, when it most definitely does not. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Is using a non-free image so that a freely licensed image can be used really a valid reason per the NFCC? The very last sentence of the lede mentions both flags and there are wikilinks to their respective articles, which is what No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI seems to say should be done in cases like this for the non-free image. Just for reference, the flag is being used in Torres Strait Islands, but is no longer being used in Torres Strait Islanders for some reason. Was it incorrectly removed from that article or does that mean it's not needed in that article? Anyway, this is just a discussion on this one particular usage. I'm not suggesting that the flag should be deleted or removed from the other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't suggesting that we keep the image just so we can use the other, just commenting on a necessary action if we stop using it. The removal from Torres Strait Islanders occurred in March 2015, and was unexplained or discussed.[1] The editor who removed it removed content from a series of articles in a short period. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To keep the flag, the article should have explained it. However, without enough explanation, I don't mind having both flags removed from "Indigenous Australians". --George Ho (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2015 (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.