Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huetter Welcome Sign.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
COM:DW, no permission. No FoP for 2D art. Yann (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could be considered COM:DM because the function is similar to File:Walden, NY, welcome sign.jpg. We don't care about the art, picture would be here just the same without it. I'll see if it can be blurred though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- COM:DM doesn't depend of the function, but on the display. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yann: The function of the image as a whole I mean. The art has no function, it is an unwanted copyrighted work that's obscuring what we really want to see: the welcome sign. I blurred the art (which was, as I expected, not easy), is it blurry enough? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK for me like this. Yann (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yann: The function of the image as a whole I mean. The art has no function, it is an unwanted copyrighted work that's obscuring what we really want to see: the welcome sign. I blurred the art (which was, as I expected, not easy), is it blurry enough? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- COM:DM doesn't depend of the function, but on the display. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz and Yann: Given that this is used on sister projects for illustrative purposes, it would seem to be a bad idea to falsify the look of the sign and then upload it over the original. IMO it should have been uploaded under a different filename, globally replaced, and the old version deleted. As such, it does not actually demonstrate what the sign looks like, so is probably out of scope.... that it's currently in use would seem to be irrelevant, since it was stealthily replaced by overwriting (I know this wasn't your intention, Alexis, but it would seem to be the outcome). Thoughts? Storkk (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I nominated it. I will let others decide about its use on Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Storkk: being an administrator you should know that what you just proposed is impossible. If this file page is deleted, the new file would not be able to properly source and attribute the original. (also, sooner or later somebody will nominate it for deletion "because the original was deleted") To me, the background art is DM. This photo is not added to articles because of the decorative value of the background art.
- What could be done, I guess, is to rename the file (and put "blur" in the filename) without leaving a redirect, letting the Wikipedias decide for themselves if they wish to re-add it. (this does leave the question: what to do with Wikidata and wikis that obtain file names that way..) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Being a long-time contributor, you should know that... phrases like that are useless and purely antagonistic. All attribution can easily be accomplished. This is routine. And no, I don't believe simply renaming the file is sufficient notice for a wikipedia that is currently using the photo to demonstrate how the sign looks that they are now not actually demonstrating how the sign looks (what do you mean by "re-add it"? you mean rename it and not globally replace it, i.e. leave redlinks?) Storkk (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Long-time is relative, I may have registered over a decade ago but never been very active here until roughly half a year ago. And yes, that's exactly what I meant. Rename it, leave no redirect, no global replacements. I will probably re-add it myself to enwiki with a note in the caption. Wikidata does support image captions so I suppose that can be fixed as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Being a long-time contributor, you should know that... phrases like that are useless and purely antagonistic. All attribution can easily be accomplished. This is routine. And no, I don't believe simply renaming the file is sufficient notice for a wikipedia that is currently using the photo to demonstrate how the sign looks that they are now not actually demonstrating how the sign looks (what do you mean by "re-add it"? you mean rename it and not globally replace it, i.e. leave redlinks?) Storkk (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I nominated it. I will let others decide about its use on Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: So I tried to split the difference here. I don't believe that the blurred image is totally out of scope as it can still show the basic sign. So I split that version off into a renamed copy and deleted this one with a log entry that will carry over to the projects informing them of the new version. If they wish to replace it with that that is ok but we aren't then forcing it upon them with an overwrite. --Majora (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well it should have carried over to the other projects but unfortunately the delinker bot took the first log entry instead of the last one 
. So...not entirely sure what is the best course of action now but I tried. --Majora (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
