Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

March 13

2023 Philadelphia Mayoral Candidate Campaign Logos

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 File:Jeff Brown Philadelphia Mayor Logo.png, File:Cherelle Parker Mayoral Logo.png, File:Rebecca for Philadelphia.png & File:Logo John Wood For Mayor.JPG. Move rest to Commons -FASTILY 09:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the twelve campaign logos that were being used in 2023 Philadelphia mayoral election. I did boldly removed them from the article twice for the reasons given in Talk:2023 Philadelphia mayoral election#Logo use in candidates table and WP:MCQ#Why, but have re-added them to allow them to be discussed here. Four of these files (File:David Oh Mayor.png, File:James DeLeon for Mayor.png, File:Allan Domb Mayoral Logo.png and File:Bloom for Mayor Logo.png) have been uploaded to Commons, but their use in the article is being discussed here. The other nine were uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content; so, not only their use in the article, but also their copyright status is being discussed here.

Four of the non-free files (File:BrownForPhillylogo.png, File:Derek Green Mayoral Logo.png, File:Helen Gym Mayoral Logo.png, File:MQS Mayor Logo.png), seem too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US since they're nothing but text and simple shapes; these most likely can be converted to {{PD-logo}} and tagged for a move to Commons.

The remaining five non-free ones (File:Jeff Brown Philadelphia Mayor Logo.png, File:Cherelle Parker Mayoral Logo.png, File:Rebecca for Philadelphia.png and File:Logo John Wood For Mayor.JPG) have more complex graphcial elements being used in them, in addition to text and simple shapes, and these might need to be treated as non-free. Two of the Commons files (File:James DeLeon for Mayor.png and File:David Oh Mayor.png) have similar graphical elements, but those two files seemed to have been boldly uploaded to Commons, and may actually not be OK for Commons.

For what it's worth, it would seem quite hard to justify the use of any non-free logos in the article per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFC#CS per WP:NFCCP and WP:JUSTONE, even though non-free use rationales have been provided for each. So, if any of the non-free ones need to remain non-free, then they probably should be deleted if the consensus is that their non-free use fails any of the NFCCP.

The question about whether any PD licensed images should be used has to do with MOS:LOGO. There is very little if any encyclopedic value added to the article by these logos and although they're not subject to WP:NFCC and are OK to use from a copyright standpoint, their use is still more decorative than contextual, and would seem not be something that should be encouraged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2023 (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:HMS Prince of Wales Bell Replica.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 ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in HMS Prince of Wales (53)#Replica bell for successor and HMS Prince of Wales (R09)#Replica bell from predecessor which fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. There's really nothing about this non-free image of two smiling men standing next to the replacement bell that the reader needs to see that can't be understand from the text content in each article where the file is being used. The content is both articles is pretty much the same with only some minor differences in wording; bascially, shipbuilder Cammell Laird was commissioned to recreate the original bell, did so, and then presented it to captain of the current incarnation of the ship. There's nothing any of that which requires seeing a non-free image, and omitting the image will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article content in any way. Furthermore, the image itself is also not the subject of any sourced critical commentary per se which might also be seen at a possible justification for non-free use. So, there's no reason justification for this file's use in either article per WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and removed it. My apologies - I didn't mean to cause trouble. SantosPhillipCarlo (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2023 (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:Hood Bell Unveiling.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 ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in HMS Hood#Expeditions to retrieve ship's bell which fails WP:NFCC#8. This photo itself isn't the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the relevant section, and the reader doesn't really need to see it to undderstand any of the article content about the expedition to retrieve the bell and the unveiling ceremony in which the Princess Royal revealed the recovered bell. Removing this file from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understand of the relevant article content in any way per WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and removed it. My apologies - I didn't mean to cause trouble. SantosPhillipCarlo (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2023 (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:Cover of The Book of Tempeh 2nd ed.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 ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in William Shurtleff#The Book of Tempeh~~HMS Hood#Expeditions to retrieve ship's bell~~ which fails WP:NFCC#8.This photo itself isn't the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the relevant section, and the reader doesn't really need to see it to undderstand any of the article content about the expedition to retrieve the bell and the unveiling ceremony in which the Princess Royal revealed the recovered bell.Removing this file from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understand of the relevant article content in any way per WP:NFC#CS. Non-free book cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the books it represents, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. There's no sourced critical commentary regarding this particular cover art in the relevant section where it's being used. Moreove, even though there are brief mentions that the wife of the subject of the article, who also co-authored the book, provided technical illustrations for the pair's books in William Shurtleff#Early life and William Shurtleff#Marriage and family, but neither of these require a non-free image to be seen to be understood by the reader per WP:NFC#CS. If more sourced critical commentary about the wife's illustrations and how they're representative of her work as an illustrator could be found or even if the wife is Wikipedia notable in her own right as an author/illustrator and a stand-alone article was created about her, then perhaps this file's non-free use could be justified; however, I don't see any justification for this file's non-free use given it's current use in this particular article.-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly based on the following due to a silly copy-paste error. Newly added comments are underlined, and removed comments are stricken out. -- 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)][reply]

I am the uploader of the Cover of The Book of Tempeh. Marchjuly has not given a reason why this file should be removed. I uploaded it because it shows the illustration style of co-author Akiko Aoyagi. Her illustrations were integral to the value of the Books of Tempeh, Tofu, and Miso, at minimum. These illustrations documented the traditional methods for manufacturing and preparing these foods. Aoyaki has continued to be a coauthor of most if not all of the books published by the Soyfoods Center. The file shows her style of illustration. Downtowngal (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My sincere apologies to you Downtowngal for the confusion. I had made another nomination of a different file on this page and mistakenly copied and pasted the reasons for nominating that file for deletion into this one. I've fixed it now. Again, my apologies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (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:CharlesArthurSalvador.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 ⚡ 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC violation. Virtually all the photographs of Charles Bronson that exist were taken while he was in prison, his current status does not prevent the creation of a free image. That those able to take photographs of him have chosen not to release them on a free licence is not an end-run around NFCC policy. 84.69.13.253 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this deleted just yet. I feel that it would be very difficult to reach anybody who might be able to donate us a photo of Bronson, and plus, many people who have photographed him over the years have been reporters, interviewers, and close friends or family members during conjugal visits.
If you have the connections or know-how to get a free photo of Bronson, then feel free to delete the image. But if you don't then I recommend we leave the current image in place until a free image can be created, obtained, or is found. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free images of still living persons aren't used by default simply because a free equivalent isn't currently available or because it might possibly be difficult to obtain. As long as a person is living, it's generally not considered unreasonable to expect that a free image can be created or found by someone at some point; in some cases, there may be extenuating circumstances as explained in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but if Salvador (Bronson) is no longer incarcerated and is essentially walking around like any other free individual would, it's going to be hard to justify any non-free image of him. Even if he's still in prison but appearing in publicly accessible venues (e.g. courtrooms or their vicinity) or giving interviews (print publications, TV, film, etc.), then it could still be hard to justify the use of any non-free one. The article states that he's schedule to appear before a parole board in March 2023 (which is now); so, I guess his "current status" would still be prisoner, which could make obtaining a free equivalent quite difficult but not impossible depending upon the nature of his incarceration. This image was uploaded in December 2022, but the article was created back in 2003. In all the years between 2003 and 2022, the article has either been imageless or other images were uploaded and subsequently deleted for one reason or another. Over the years it appears a couple of files like File:Michael Gordon Peterson.png and File:Charles Salvador.jpeg actually were uploaded to Commons for use in the article, but subsequently deleted. Even though those two files weren't licensed as non-free and were deleted as copyvios, it also seems given Bronson's fame (books have been written about him and movies have been made about him, right?) that a non-free image would've been uploaded well prior to December 2022 if it considered OK to do. If, by chance, a non-free image was previously uploaded and subsequently deleted, then that would make it even harder to justify this non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't believe cameras are allowed in British court rooms, and plus, we are still awaiting the parole board's decision. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't allowed in British court rooms, however they are allowed outside courts which is where Bronson was photographed from a public place in 2018 see https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charles-bronson-seen-first-time-13579795. There is no "it's difficult" exemption for the possibility of a free image being created. While he's alive, there exists a possibility that a free image could be created. 81.79.92.112 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2023 (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:NeoGAF gaming discussion forum screenshot.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 ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this screenshot meets the NFCC. WP:SCREENSHOT suggests that non-free screenshots should be used to illustrate notable aspects or unique features of a given program or website, but this screenshot does not appear to do so, showing only the generic-looking forum structure of the site. The rationale is weak - the logo (which is on Commons by virtue of being under the WP:TOO) already serves to identify the property better than this screenshot, and simply illustrating the article is not a sufficient reason to keep non-free content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to its size, its encyclopedic nature is dubious. Also, one forum looks like all other forums. It is unnecessary - just the logos of NeoGaf and Resetera are fine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:24, 14 March 2023 (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:John Hall Wheelock.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun did not renew copyrights according to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/baltimoresun. Original version can be undeleted and copied to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2023 (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:Mo0bclones01.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 ⚡ 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (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.