Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

File:ODU Baseball Alt Logo.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 ⚡ 04:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo possibly above the threshold of originality as the stitches can't really be described in terms of simple geometric shapes. It's possible the logo is in public domain for other reasons, but this requires evidence. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:25, 7 January 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:NOVA target chamber maintenance.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image from Lawrence Livermore labs which operates under a contract to the US Department of Energy. As a contractor, their work is not autiomatically PD. No evidence that this is a DoE work. Whpq (talk) 03:24, 6 January 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:CTTransit Logo.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 ⚡ 07:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I very well could be wrong here, but is there anything about this logo that is above ToO? The entire logo consists of solid-colored shapes and text with no further modifications. If curved shapes like those of Nike are allowed, is there any reason that the rounded-edge triangle-cut circle shouldn't be? Artsistra (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as Textlogo Seems below the US threshold of originality to me, per nom. Felix QW (talk) 16:51, 6 January 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:Poly.pov

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 using G7 per discussion below. --Trialpears (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of this file's history of deletions and deletion nominations, but nominate anyway as I believe the situation has changed some.

This is the settings file (equivalent to text) for the program POV-Ray that was used to generate images such as File:Tetrahedron.jpg and many other similar ones.

This is also the last file on Wikipedia of a file type that can't be uploaded anymore. I don't believe we should have any files in that category and am thus nominating it for deletion.

I see a value in keeping this information available so it can replicated and these images modified and generally agree that it should be kept in some form which was the result of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_October_5#File:Poly.pov. The most natural way to do this in my view would be a normal wikitext page in the creators, Cyp, userspace. This could look like User:Trialpears/poly.pov which has the added benefit that the file content is visible without downloading the file and that you get syntaxhighlighting. Actually using it in POV-Ray would be slightly more annoying since you would have to open a text editor to get it as a .pov file, but I think this is a fine trade off. --Trialpears (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a tendency to become the last in random categories. Anyway, apparently there is a User:Cyp/Poly.pov since 2016, so I've changed a few links to point there instead. Think the remaining links to the File: are talking about it having a weird extension or talking about deleting/restoring the file, but I might have missed some. No objections to deleting if there aren't any relevant links left. Κσυπ Cyp 10:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyp I found 130 commons files refering to it as Image:Poly.pov which probably should be updated as well. I've requested AWB access so I can do it quickly, but that will probably take a few days to get approved. Would you be comfortable with me closing this discussion, updating the links when I get AWB and then deleting the file as a G7? I also wanna say a big thanks for creating these images as well. I fell down the geometry rabbit hole myself a few years ago and have spent quite some time looking at them. --Trialpears (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Despite the sentimental value of having the last unuploadable file on Wikipedia, I'm ok with that.

Come to think of it, this isn't the 2000s anymore. These days I think it would make sense to have glTF versions of the polyhedra (and probably of some other stuff on Wikipedia) that can be rotated in 3D in the browser via WebGL. Why isn't glTF a permitted filetype on Wikipedia yet? Κσυπ Cyp 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for not supporting glTF seems to be that efforts to implement it stalled in 2018. --Trialpears (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got AWB access now. Closing and deleting as discussed. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 7 January 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:Seal of the Presiding Bishop.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims to be the creator of the Church Of God In Christ bishop seal. If the uploader is connected to the church, then that should be disclosed (especially as the user is actively editing a BLP of a bishop). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:41, 6 January 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:Nova Scotia Bishop Coat of Arms.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User should explain how they own the rights to the seal of a bishop. If it’s fan art, then it should not be used on the bishop’s article. Otherwise, the user should either explain their connection to the bishop or demonstrate permission from the bishop. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's oprhaned. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:26, 7 January 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:Fighters 64 th army are fighting for a house in a neighbourhood of Stalingrad, 1942.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear publication history and authorship make it difficult to ascertain whether the image was in the public domain in Russia at the restoration date, January 1st 1996. Unused. Felix QW (talk) 14:49, 6 January 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:Fighting in battle of berlin.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The complete lack of publication history make it difficult to determine the source country and the copyright situation in the source country at the URAA restoration date. Unused. Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 6 January 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:Firoze Noon Photo.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seemingly professional photo without camera EXIF data has been flagged as a disputed license years ago, and the user has received several previous warnings for copyright infringement. As there does not seem to any web source, it does not appear speedy-able to me. Felix QW (talk) 16:04, 6 January 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:First Unitarian Church of Berkeley, exterior.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be seen at the given source, mounted and with a handwritten annotation. It does not seem to have been published soon after its publication and [1] lists it as around 1915, so I doubt that it is in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 16:29, 6 January 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:FKEsling.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~While I doubt that the image is PD in Australia,~~ since the photographer not being "publicly known" does not make an image anonymous, it is certainly not PD in the US as it would in any case have been copyrighted in Australia in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is known. And it is pre 1955 so PD in Australia. I would assume copyright has expired in US since there is no evidence of its extension under the 28 year rule I.e. " Created between 1923 and 1963 - 28 years and renewable for 67 years"Garyvines (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the National Library identifies this in its Terms of Use for this item as follows "Image: Copyright undetermined http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/Text: Copyright National Museum of Australia / CC BY-NC https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" Garyvines (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is certainly PD in Australia, but due to the copyright extensions under the URAA it is copyrighted in the US until 95 years after first publication in Australia. The rules on copyright notice and extension do not apply to works that were not originally published in the United States, unfortunately. Felix QW (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify for me please. - Are non US items copyright in US because they are on wikipedia, or because they apply the copyright rules to the rest of the world? Or ist here something else I don't understand?Garyvines (talk) 08:11, 14 January 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:Flag of Baghdad Governorate.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the claim of public domain status in Iraq is unclear to me. I couldn't trace any use of the flag in the past which would suggest that it had been in use long enough to match any of the clauses in the PD-Iraq template. If it had been drawn from an original description rather than from an image, then one could argue that it is not in fact a derivative work of the image and therefore the original "own work" license could stand. There may also be an argument that the flag is below the threshold of originality, but at least Commons has no information on how high that bar is in Iraq. Felix QW (talk) 16:44, 6 January 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:Brave 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: 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 ⚡ 07:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed under a free license (MPL-2.0) here. --Matr1x-101 $_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page @ commons} - ^talk - _contribs} 16:46, 6 January 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:Flag of Langley, British Columbia.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A claim has been made that this image is below the threshold of originality; as the flowers seem rather complex to me, I would prefer to open it for discussion. A definitely free version could be created directly from the blazon at [2]. Felix QW (talk) 17:11, 6 January 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:Dhaka Racing team with the president.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 ⚡ 08:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not have any EXIF information to suggest this was taken by the user. Another version of this photo File:Dhaka Racing presenting to president.jpg, was previously deleted at FFD as it had a similar issue. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:29, 7 January 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.