Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29

File:Busan I Park.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: Removed second use of image on same page Majora (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is licensed as non-free and it has a non-free use rationale, but the design seems to be simple enough in my opinion to be OK to re-license as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. If, however, the consensus is that the file needs to stay as non-free, then the second use of it Busan IPark#Crest does not satisfy WP:NFCCP. A non-free use rationale is only provided for the use in the main infobox, so WP:NFCC#10c is not met for use in the "Crest" section; moreover, there's no real need to use the same non-free file twice within the same article per WP:NFCC#3a. So, if the file's licensing remains as is, I suggest keep for the use in the infobox and remove for the use in the gallery of crests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed second use of fair use image on same page per above. Closing. --Majora (talk) 03:00, 7 September 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:Anyang LG Cheetahs.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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former crest of FC Seoul being used in a gallery in a subsection called "Crest". File has a non-free use rationale, but usage of non-free images in galleries is generally not allowed per WP:NFG because such usage tends to me more decorative than contexutal. A source is cited for the image, but the source is in Korean so I am not sure what it says. Unless this can somehow be better incorporated into the article with content discussing this crest itself reflecting what the source says, I don't see how simply showing the image in a gallery justifies non-free use. So, I suggest remove unless the issues with WP:NFCC#8 are resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete south korean football club crest files, If you can't check out informaion about file source, Because you don't read korean language. Please use google translator or ask me. I can help.

I think most files don't have problem. File source have korean lanuage information, Don't to justify deletion.Footwiks (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file wasn't nominated for discussion simply because the source is in Korean; it was nominated because in my opinion it is being used in decorative manner in a gallery which is something not allowed by WP:NFCC. If the file can be incorporated into the article where the crest is being discussed and the discussion is supported by a reliable source (regardless of the source's language), then its use probably would meet WP:NFCC#8. The discussion should be something more than a trivial mention which says the crest was used by the team at one time; it should be specifically about the crest itself, such as its meaning or elements, or something to such a degree that actually not seeing the crest would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of what is written. I can't read the cited source, but if you can and want to add the relevant content, then feel free to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 29 July 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:Eli Lilly Industrialist.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: changed to non-free Majora (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that this image is in fact free, and it was thus tagged as "no permission" deletion by Kelly. I wonder if it can be used as fair use or if it's free for age-related reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:07, 29 July 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:Escudo bahia blanca.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. Vector version available at File:Escudo de Bahía Blanca.svg. — ξ ^xplicit 01:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a logo (in which case it may fall under commons:PD-AR-Anonymous if it was created on behalf of the government or anonymously, or {{Non-free logo}}) or a coat of arms, in which case it should be replaced with a freely licensed version seeing as the freeness of the current file was disputed by Kelly? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct template is actually c:template:PD-AR-Gov as it is a coat of arms. I'll switch over everything and move it to Commons. But this one is a keep (and eventual F8). --Majora (talk) 03:08, 7 September 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:Ericandnancy.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 ⚡ 03:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the license statement at http://web.archive.org/web/20060616181847/http://www.tingstadrumbel.com/contactus.htm clear enough for us? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe that their license statement equates to "Public Domain," so the license on the file is invalid. I don't feel that their license allows commercial and derivative works, so I don't think that it's compatible with our project. ★ Bigr Tex 20:43, 8 August 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:EU Member States’ innovation performance.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged as no permission, but the license http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF may be free enough for us - all depends on whether modification is permitted by that text. May be worth asking via email, perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just found a misplaced OTRS pending tag that was added to the image's description in an article: diff from 22 July 2016. Anyhow, the licence has been accepted at Commons, so we can move it there. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 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:St.clare ext1a.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but credited to Archphoto Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 29 July 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.