Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

November 19

File:Madonna - get together.ogg

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 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna - get together.ogg (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:SDU BLACK RGB.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: Relicense to fair use -FASTILY 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not too simple for copyright. Likely eligible for fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would be no problem to re-license this as {{Non-free logo}} and adding {{Non-free use rationale logo}} as the WP:FUR; however, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be considered ineligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:TOO United States and thus OK to treat as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it would still be eligible for such protection in its country of origin Denmark per c:COM:TOO Denmark. The silhouette cherry is really the only possible copyrightable element, and that doesn't really seem to involve lots of creativity. Normally, comparing different images is not always a good idea per WP:OTHERIMAGE, but generic cherry imagery seems to be quite commonplace as seen in c:Category:Cherry icons, and there are also examples other silouettes like File:Apple logo black.svg or c:Category:Plain black SVG icons which might be worth consideration as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 19 November 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:SaintDismas.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article(s) the file was used in are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 02:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file was originally uploaded as non-free content for use in Saint Dismas Prison Ministry which seems acceptable per item 2 of WP:NFCI. The "San Dismas Prison Ministry" article, however, was subsequently redirected to Religion in United States prisons#Catholicism and the image was moved along with the rest of the content to the new article in Janaury 2020. Shortly, thereafter, in February 2020, I converted the file's licensing from non-free to {{PD-logo}} since it seem too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States; I also tagged the file with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} per WP:MTC. The file was moved to Commons as c:File:SaintDismas.png by Sreejithk2000 on November 15, 2020, but was deleted a few days later by a Wikipedia/Commons administrator named Magog the Ogre a few days later per c:COM:F1. Magog the Ogre then restored the local file's non-free licensing.

All of the above is fine; I was WP:BOLD in converting the license to PD, but if Commons can't keep it and it needs to be non-free, then that's OK. The problem, however, is that file's non-free use doesn't really comply with the WP:NFCCP any more in the redirected "Saint Dismas Prison Ministry" and its non-free use in Catholic Church in the United States#Prisons (by template transclusion) certainly doesn't comply with the NFCCP; so, as non-free content, one use is quite questionable and the other use is completely unacceptable.

Non-free content is often uploaded for use in stand-alone articles which are subsequently redirected/merged into other articles for reasons that have nothing to do with non-free content use; in most cases, such as in this case, there is almost no reassessment of the file's non-free use and it almost always has problems with WP:NFCC#8 because it's no longer being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about whose organization the logo is intended to represent. It seems that the content about the Ministry was redirected to the article as an attempt to preserve it per WP:CHEAP because someone felt the ministry did not meet WP:NORG. That's fine, but again that changes the justification for the file's non-free use. I don't think this file can be kept if it needs to be licensed as non-free in either the "Catholic Church" or the "Religion in United States prisons" articles since those respective uses no longer meet WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. If someone wants to restore the stand-alone article about the ministry and use the there, then that would be OK; that, however, a discussion that would need to take place somewhere else and the file can be restored per WP:REFUND if that's what ends up happening. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: if you'd like to appeal the decision at Commons, you can do so at c:Commons:Undeletion requests. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SaintDismas.png --Sreejith K (talk) 14:35, 19 November 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:M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy Pump Up The Jam.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: Converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If someone can provide proof/examples/citations that this image is below German TOO, then it can be transferred to Commons -FASTILY 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's decide whether the image, currently used at Pump Up the Jam#M.C. Sar & The Real McCoy version, is free in both the United States (c:COM:TOO US) and its home country, Germany (c:COM:TOO Germany). If in both, then transfer it to Wikimedia Commons. If free in the US but not Germany, then {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If unfree in the US, then the image must either comply with NFCC, including "contextual significance" criterion (#8) (i.e. more than just "mark as non-free"), or be deleted.

IMO the cover art itself doesn't look original enough for the US copyright protection. I see computerized font and plain colors and shapes, i.e. nothing out of ordinary to me. But unsure whether it is original enough in Germany. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be below c:COM:TOO United States, but my guess is that's probably not the case for c:COM:TOO Germany; so, perhaps {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be OK. However, even as non-free, I'm not sure that it's use in Pump Up the Jam fails WP:NFCC#8 as is being suggested. While it's true that the use of album cover art for purely identification reasons (i.e. absent specific critical commentary about the cover itself) in sections of articles is generally not allowed as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, articles about songs per common practice also tend to include content about cover versions. Even in cases where a cover version of a song might be Wikipedia notable in its own right per WP:NSONG, separate articles tend to not be created and all the content about the song (including cover versions) tends to be added to the same article for encyclopedic reasons per WP:SONGCOVER. The question then is whether this particular cover version would be Wikipedia notable in its own right per NSONG. If it is, then an allowance seems to be generally made to allow the use of its cover art in the same manner as if it were being used in a stand-alone article. Reaching number 16 in Germany seems to meet criterion #1 for NSONG, but that same criterion also states that charting nationally is not sufficient on its own for establishing Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER, I don't see either one mentioning images explicitly. The one coming in mind is MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, saying that free content is preferred, yet they can allow acceptable fair use content that fits enwiki's standards. From my experience, usually, a side label or a cover art of the original recording's single release is the lead image of a song article because an original recording is well known. Then cover versions arrive. Usually (to me), if a cover version can't have its stand-alone article, then a song article covering the original and cover version(s) should have minimal amount of images as possible. In some cases, if an original is lesser known and more obscure, then a cover version would make the same song popular (e.g. All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song) and (They Long to Be) Close to You), thus making an image of a release of the cover version a more suitable lead image. In some cases, we have critical commentary covering the original and cover versions more extensively, like Love Don't Live Here Anymore and I Will Always Love You.
Back to this image, in this case, I tried finding third-party sources discussing the Real McCoy version of the song in databases of Wikipedia Library, but found none from those databases as of date. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually (to me), if a cover version can't have its stand-alone article, then a song article covering the original and cover version(s) should have minimal amount of images as possible. is pretty much what I said above. I'm not suggesting that the cover art of a cover song is automatically OK in all cases; only that it's probably OK in cases where the cover version could support a stand-alone article, even if that article is just a stub, because it's deemed notable in its own right. It's not surpprising that there's no mention of images in NSONG because images have nothing to do with the Wikipedia notability of a song. Perhaps something could be added to SONGCOVER (like for example was done in WP:FILMSCORE), but SONGCOVER is a WikiProject guideline and it's up to the WikiProject to add it if it feels such information is relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 20 November 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:Tool aenima cover dedication to hicks.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: all this is really doing in the article is saying that they had a tribute to Hicks. This can easily be accomplished with text and there is no justification for this non-free media, especially since this article already contains several pieces of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, there is no reason for that album cover to be used in the article about the band. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:59, 23 November 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:Ayala Triangle - Ninoy Aquino Monument (Ayala Ave. Cor. Paseo De Roxas, Makati; 2015-04-03).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of pano in the phils. Created by Amastacio Caedo, dead in 1990. No permission from Caedo heirs Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mrcl lxmna you may please stop sending Files for Discuission requests againts my images for the purpose of deleting them due to unfree panorama rights in the Philippines because your continuing actions are attack on Philippine tourism, arts and culture, as well as free speech. Back then you sent thousands of deletion requests on Wikimedia Commomns, now you're targeting English Wikipedia. Of course, my goal of contributing landscape images on Wikimewdia Foundation platforms is to provide the people especially content creators a free-yo-use alternative, since vast majority of images in the Internet aren't always usable due to strict copyright policies of photo publishers and authors. Lots of my images have been also used by mainstream media outlets as well. Specifically in this latest claim, the sculpture of late opposition leader Benigno Aquino, what I'm disputing here now is the application of copyright restrictions to structures which are now owned by the government. Erection and/or maintenance of these monuments, nationalistic syymbols and other historical sites are funded by the Republic and nationals, and it's the Filipino public who hold the ownership. Also, maybe you didn't know that some architectural works depicted on some images in question may be "works-for-hire" commissioned by the government. Finally, I'm questioning your existence here on Wikimedia foundation because just like what other uploaders said, I noticed that your sole purpose is to petition the removal of most Philippines pictures because of you claim of violating the rights of property owners and architects, and that's so very unpatriotic and anti-free speech. Now is the time for everyone to know about your business here on Wikimedia Foundation, and the first thing to know is your occupation (whether photographer, lawyer, architect, tourism expert or historian), and if your actions are really done with acknowledgement from the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHIL). Patrickroque01

My response to you @Patrickroque01:. First of all, I have a professor who is acknowledgeable in copyright law. And second, please do not use ad hominem statement against me. The monument may be paid and commissioned by the Makati city government, and the public may own the monument or even the nation. But the copyright holder is NOT the local government or not even the public or state. Youre confusing copyright with ownership which are 2 different things fyi. The ownership may be the government or the state, but the copyright is still with the heir of ANASTACIO CAEDO the sculptor of this mlnument. You should provide proof of evidence that the sculptor was a government employee, or he had a formal agreement through written contract transferring his economic and moral rights to the government or the state or public. But theres nothing indicated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastacio_Caedo that shows he was a government employee when he made his works including Ninoy Aquino Monument. Commissioning doesnt transfer copyright of the artists Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:28, 23 November 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:McMicking Memorial.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of pano in the philippines. No permission from the designer of this memorial erected in 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Triangle_Gardens Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:48, 19 November 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.

Alternative cover arts of Pump Up the Jam (album)

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 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Technotronic Pump Up The Jam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Technotronic featuring Ya Kid K.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:अलेक्ज्याण्डर भ. टेरेन्टेभ.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 ⚡ 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image is merely taken from social media here (direct), which has no indication of a free license. Further, that vk account purportedly belongs to Sandesh Lamsal, whom the uploader has been socking to promote. A confirmed sock of the uploader, HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki, has indicated 1) they are not Sandesh Lamsal and 2) they've been taking content from social media. Evidence of a free license from the actual author is needed. Note this same image as File:अलेक्ज्याण्डर भ. टेरेन्टेभ Rus.jpg has been deleted from the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 20:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:39, 21 November 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.