Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.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. NFCC aside, consensus is in favor of using the original version of the test, and not a colorized derivative -FASTILY 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC#7 as the original image from the 1958 paper is in the public domain (see File:WugTest.png and external investigation). While the copyright status of this image is unclear, the original published wug test was not colored so this is certainly not the original and so can be replaced with a free and more encyclopedic image. — Wug·a·po·des 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The archived copy of the source mentioned in the file description attributes the image to "The Wug and Wug Test © Jean Berko Gleason 2006", which seems to refer to Berko's 2006 book mentioned in the Lingthusiasm Q&A. (Ironically(?), an excerpt of the article on McCulloch's blog seems to be the only version of the source that's still online.) Nardog (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my guess, but I'd never seen that book. It's not clear whether adding color to the wug is sufficient transformation to reach the threshold of originality, but taken in context of the entire work (which was first publication for all the other stimuli except wugs) it may be. If not, then this would also be public domain since authors cannot exercise copyright over public domain portions of an otherwise copyrightable work. — Wug·a·po·des 03:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was 100% convinced the "ricking" image was a meme made by someone parodying the test until I saw the archived page. Nardog (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for copyright reasons (the original has what looks like a valid claim of being PD, this is merely a coloring-in of the original, and I don't believe that's enough to pass the threshold of originality) but because it's low-quality, unencyclopedic (because of its low quality and because it cuts off the top part of the image losing significant aspects of its meaning), and currently orphaned. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall why it came out so awful but I was just too exhausted to figure it out. If you can make a better one that still respects NFCC that'd be great. (See the discussion linked from one of the versions in the upload history of the file.) E Eng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed the blurriness. E Eng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ (see below) I've nominated the "PD" version for deletion Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WugTest.png so let's not be hasty. E Eng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait how long? Commons still has open deletion discussions that were started last February. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot we were talking about Commons. E Eng 03:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let it die a natural death in a couple days when it meets WP:F7d. If the discussion on Commons results in deletion, then we can upload a non-free version again, this time preferably in better quality—just because a fair-use image must be low-res doesn't mean it has to be so blurry. Nardog (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blurriness has been fixed. E Eng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what the nomination says, the original test is in color, as shown in this file; the image in Word, where the research was reported, is in B&W because Word didn't print in color. I've corrected the article to reflect this [1], and as a result this file is no longer orphaned. E Eng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original. Delete. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 22:03, 1 December 2020 (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:BBC Two Paint ident.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: relisted on 2020 December 8. FASTILY 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (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:Beachboyssmile2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to the other piece of non-free media on this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But yet it's not identical, which is why it's there. ili (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No "Good Vibrations/Good Vibrations/Good Vibrations" and a different logo at the top compared to the other image. --TapLover (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the WP:NFCC, especially #8. Delete. The above rationales are not valid reasons for keeping. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFCC#3a. There doesn't seem to be critical commentary of the differences between the two covers, so only one is needed. — Wug·a·po·des 02:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wug. --Wcam (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2020 (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:Overwatch loot box.gif

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 2020 November 12. Izno (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (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:Air-SeaRescueFloat UK.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 ⚡ 07:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as public domain as a work of the US Navy, but it appears to come from 1942 book, Britain's Wonderful Air Force, published by Odhams Press limited, which appears to be a private company. Wikiacc (¶) 21:05, 3 October 2020 (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.