Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

File:UBC COA.svg

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 usage at University of British Columbia, remove usage at Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, and University of British Columbia Okanagan. While there's a discussion here about possibly marking this as in the public domain, there's been no consensus that supports that at the moment. I suggest further discussion about the possibility of public domain usage at the file talk page for now. Note that I'm also removing it from usage at University of British Columbia Law Review which has no fair use rationale at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of the coat-of-arms for the University of British Columbia. File is also being used in Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Law Review and University of British Columbia Okanagan. Not sure if this satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since a free equivalent might possibly be created using freely licesned heraldic elements. A non-free use rationale is provided for each usage (except for "University of British Columbia Law Review" which fails WP:NFCC#10c), but the usage in the articles other than the main university article seems non-NFCC compliant per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI even if NFCC#1 is satisfied. So, suggest keep for "University of British Columbia" (contingent on NFCC#1 being satisfied), and remove from the other articles regardless. For reference, some of these may have specific logos which might be able to be used instead, such as Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law University of British Columbia Law Review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest finding out if this coat-of-arms, originally adopted in 1915, is in the public domain. It's probable that it was first published around the time it was adopted. It's said to have been "restored to its original splendor" recently, whatever that means. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the file being converted to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or something similar if it can be shown to have been first published prior to 1923. That would make all of the NFCC issues go away. Does it matter that the current version has been "restored" (for online use possibly) if the original is not protected by copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2016 (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.

NBC 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: keep and convert all to public domain Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg and c:Category:NBC logos it does not appear that the "peacock" used in NBC logos is eligible for copyright protection. There are, however, many logos of NBC-affiliates uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free, and many of these are nothing but a version of the peacock and the station's call letters, etc. Some of these are being used in the main infobox, and such usage is most likely complies with WP:NFCC; however, others are "former" logos being used outside the infobox and in many cases their respective usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. So, I am wondering if non-free logos such as those listed above really need to be non-free. If they can be converted to {{PD-logo}}, tagged with {{Trademark}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, then they would no longer be subject to the NFCC (in particular NFCC#8). It might also mean that similar logos for other affilaites could be also converted to "PD-logo" per WP:BOLD without requiring a separate discussion at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Unable to notify RenamedUser01302013 because their user talk has been protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mark in PD – If File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg is a PD image, then so are the rest of these. They are to simple to be copyrighted. Mark them in the PD and copy to Commons. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg obviously has an incorrect copyright tag. The bird design is clearly more complex than a simple border and a simple sphere with some symbols on it. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to PD, copy to Commons and Keep Although I disagree with the PD conversion process and prefer NFCC out of caution, if NBC's logo was declared PD these logos are pretty much the same. Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to PD, copy to Commons and Keep Agree with Nate.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The simple additions to an otherwise PD-logo argument is not tenable. For example, the US Copyrights Office has ruled that adding a simple border and text (both uncopyrightable elements as such) to this otherwise uncopyrightable logo made it pass above the threshold of originality. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg is already on Commons. If its copyright tag is incorrect, then perhaps it should be discussed at c:COM:VPC or c:COM:DR. I've asked for opinions on it at c:COM:VPC#File:NBC 2014 Ident.svg. Maybe we should set that aside here and try to figure out whether some of the other files can be converted to PD. For example, File:KXAS, NBC 5 2014-2015 Logo.png and File:Kxas-nbc5-dfw-2015-logo-texas-connects-us.jpg are also on Commons. These particular files are being used in KXAS-TV along with the non-free File:Former KXAS-TV logo.png, File:Kxas 2011.png, File:KXAS-TV logo.png. The three non-free logos seem (at least to me) to be similar enough to "File:KXAS, NBC 5 2014-2015 Logo.png" to not meet WP:NFCC#1. In addition, none of the non-free logos are not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article, so WP:NFCC#8 also doesn't seem to be satisfied. If these can be converted to a free license, NFCC would not matter; however, they probably should be removed if they can't be converted. Same goes for something like File:WCAU-TV logo.png, File:WMAQ Logo 2012.png or File:NBC NY Nonstop.png, etc. These don't seem too different from the NBC logos in c:Category:NBC logos, so maybe they can be converted to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (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:BMC logo.svg

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. This is below the threshold of originality in the United States, but it is unclear how Switzerland applies said threshold. — ξ ^xplicit 05:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in BMC Racing Team and BMC Switzerland. Seems to be simple enough to possibly qualify as {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-USonly}}. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but the racing team seems to be a subentity of the company so I don't think the logo meets No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI if it's non-free. File was also being used in 2016 BMC Racing Team season, but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c as well as Nos. 14 and 17 of NFC#UUI. If file can be converted to a free license, then it would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC and could be used in all the above-mentioned articles. If non-free, then I suggest keep for "BMC Switzerland" and remove from "BMC Racing Team". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support keeping for BMC Switzerland, removal for BMC Racing. Note that the homepage uses this BMC Racing logo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2016 (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:Bretagne-Schuller jersey.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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a cycling jersey being used in 2015 Bretagne–Séché Environnement season and 2016 Fortuneo–Vital Concept season. File has a non-free use rationale for Bretagne-Séché Environnement, but file is not being used in the article and there are no rationales provided for the season articles. "Bretagne-Séché Environnement" has been redirected to "Fortuneo–Vital Concept" as a result of the team changing its name. So, suggest remove from "2016 Fortuneo–Vital Concept season" and "2015 Bretagne–Séché Environnement season" per WP:NFCC#10c and Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. It may be possible to add this file to 2014 Bretagne–Séché Environnement season since that is the earliest season article currently on Wikipedia and the file itself was uploaded in 2012, but only if a valid non-free use rationale can be provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2016 (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:Team Giant-Alpecin 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: convert to pd-textlogo Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Team Giant-Alpecin. This seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-USonly}}, which means it would not be subject to WP:NFCC. Files has a non-free use rationale for "Team Giant-Alpecin", but it was also being used in 2016 Team Giant–Alpecin season (I removed per WP:NFCC#10c and Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI). If freely licensed file could be used pretty much in any article, but as non-free I suggest keep for only "Team Giant-Alpecin". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2016 (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:Caldera en los años 90.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 ⚡ 03:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in List of Presidents of Venezuela, Rafael Caldera, Second Presidency of Rafael Caldera and User:Razr Nation/List of Presidents of Venezuela, and additionally WP:NFCC#9 on the last page. Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, fails WP:NFCC#8 in all listed cases. By the way, WP:NFCC#9 violations should be (and I have) dealt with promptly "without warning" (WP:UNOT#Non-free images). It's useful to do this before the nomination because there is nothing to discuss regarding this point. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's too much trouble to remove files from pages if the file is going to be deleted anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (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:Ali Muhiddin Hacı Bekir (1777).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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement, unsupported claim, see Turkish Delight 80.244.22.49 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2016 (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:Skraz april 17.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 ⚡ 03:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old file that I no longer use on my Usertalk page, orphaned » skraz _/talk/email 19:48, 20 February 2016 (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:Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi Importer of Irrigation Pipes.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And it is unlikely the uploader holds copyright to the image, as they are the (one of the) subject(s) of the article, and not the photographer. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (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.