Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5[edit]

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light car barn.jpg[edit]

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: Unclear source, textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a source explicitly naming this file as freely licensed, OR if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NFCC#3b is ridiculous, simply reduce the image size. WP:NFG is merely a guideline that states it's okay on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it doesn't need to be in the gallery, but the car barn is decently discussed in the article, an important part of the complex written about, and this is the only image that depicts it. It's likely a free image anyhow, it's so old, though I haven't found the original source. As for WP:NFCC#8, I already cover that it's a significant part of the complex with enough discussion to warrant an illustration. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The file description page - which you wrote - and its use in the article doesn't support any of that. The assertion that it's "as small a version as possible", at 3710x1974 px, is ridiculous on the face of it. The image isn't discussed at all in the article; the sum total of critical commentary is the caption "Car barn and powerhouse, undated". Use of {{non-free historic image}} generally requires critical commentary on that specific image, not its subject - that the subject no longer exists would strengthen a different base rationale (typically identification), but isn't one in and of itself. And no, it doesn't identify the article's subject, which is the office complex; what this image covers gets all of one sentence in the article body and two words in the lead. Maybe an acceptable fair-use rationale could be written to use this image, but this ain't it.
  I do agree that it's likely free. It looks like newsprint, so was probably published promptly after creation, meaning it dates to 1930 at the latest and either is now or will be public domain within the next few years. Best bet to keep this image would be to contact that blogger and ask him where he got it from. —Cryptic 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already contacted the blogger, and he has no idea anymore, nor could I find the source myself. I can work towards adding more about the car barn in the article, but can you show me a better example of a nonfree file like this with a good rationale, so I can improve this one? And/or if you want to help correct it yourself, please do. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since we don't have a better source, we have to assume that the file is unfree. However, due to the age, there is also the question on whether the image is thought to satisfy WP:NFCC#1. What attempts have been made to determine that there are no other photos which are in the public domain due to lack of notice or renewal? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have been exhaustively searching the web for this file, and ones like it. So far the best I've got of the car barn is a low-res photo of the side, without showing the words printed on the front, and without showing the powerhouse. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds as if you have been searching the wrong place. The web did not exist back in the days, so the obvious place to publish photos was not on the web but on paper. What attempts have been made to see if anything was published on paper and whether any such material happens to be in the public domain? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this serious, or humor? I have been a historical researcher for well over a decade. I am not sure if you are, but I know the best avenues for research. The blogger, Don, found the photos online, and thus they are certainly online somewhere. And you might not know, but digital archives like the Library of Congress, Internet Archive, Google Books, and local sources like the Columbus Metropolitan Library, Westerville Historical Society, etc., etc., have far more old documents, newspapers, photographs, and books available online than you could find with countless hours of manually searching paper volumes. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2021 (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:June Havoc photo from Anna Christie on Celanese Theatre.jpg[edit]

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 is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary failing WP:NFCC#8. The breadth and scope of the subject's career does not need an image to demonstrate it as that is accomplished with the text in the article with her credits and so fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say what first comes to mind is the "old chestnut" that a picture is worth a thousand words. I think that this is particularly true with a visual artist such as an actor or actress. It is true, of course, that the text indicates that June Havoc played the part of Anna Christie in a performance of the Eugene O'Neill play on the Celanese Theatre program in 1952. However, that fact does not describe the performance: the look of Ms. Havoc in the role; her costume; the props. The photograph shows Ms. Havoc in character as Anna Christie, which is separate and distinct from the fact that she played the role.Raygauche (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That old chestnut is generally not accepted as a valid reason to keep a non-free image. What is needed is significant independent sourced commentary about the image. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2021 (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:Old Street station 1920.jpg[edit]

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 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Street station 1920.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:Up (Cardi B).jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 11:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

copyright image wrongly claimed as own work Deb (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2021 (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.

Vivo IPL logo[edit]

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. ✗plicit 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI #14. Could maybe be used in the article of the first event where the logo was used. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A discussion clearly resulted in favour of these logos being removed from articles. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:17, 5 October 2021 (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.

Pepsi IPL logo[edit]

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. ✗plicit 14:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI #14. Could maybe be used in the article about the first event where the logo was used. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A discussion clearly resulted in favour of these logos being removed from articles. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:18, 5 October 2021 (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.

DLF IPL logo[edit]

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. ✗plicit 14:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI #14. Could maybe be used in the article about the first event where the logo was used. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A discussion clearly resulted in favour of these logos being removed from articles. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:25, 5 October 2021 (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:Syracuse Skyline 01 cropped.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2021 (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:Kingsland-NZ.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2021 (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:IITEDA Logo.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2021 (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:An Old photo of MIC Madrasa.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, no evidence of CC0 license. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2021 (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:Lena Horne with Tuskegee airmen.png[edit]

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. With evidence found that shows that the image was published in 1945 and nothing to indicate it was registered for copyright, this is a PD image. Nthep (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Nthep (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof this photo is in the public domain. The uploader first tried to argue that it was a photo taken by members of the US military pursuant to their official duties and thus a US Fed Gov photo, but neither the source of the file (a book) or a HuffPost article linked that features the photo have said where it came from. We can't claim photos are US Gov if no source actually attributes it to the US Gov. The uploader has now changed to a PD-US-no notice tag, which stipulates that the photo was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. None of the sources provided have demonstrated when or where the photo was originally published, or that it was first published without a copyright notice. I reiterate, the uploader has failed to fulfill WP:BURDEN in showing that that this photo is actually in the public domain. My efforts at locating the origins of this photo have turned up nothing. Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no copyright ever has been asserted - this is clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely - the photo shows a contemporary star posing with Tuskegee Airmen taken January 1, 1945. The photo falls within public domain (The work was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977). If there ever had been a copyright it no longer exists and {PD-US-not renewed} would apply. FYI: This nomination is a spillover from a cantankerous AfD for a Tuskegee Airman named Willie H. Fuller. Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely then surely we can find a source that will WP:PROVEIT is indeed a US military photo? For all we know it could have just been easily been taken by a promotional agency for Horne, by a news agency that was covering her visit, or simply a private photo of an airman (not taken as an official duty). But of course you've abandoned that line of logic since you've opted for a different PD permission tag; you assert, work was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977 and yet you can't demonstrate the original place of publication and/or date. What newspaper? What propaganda publication? What issue and page number? You can't tell us because there is indeed zero proof that this photo meets the terms of that PD tag. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "Tuskegee airmen" "Lena Horne" site:gov OR site:edu shows 76 results to sort through. I see other photographs of her with them at https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Photos/igphoto/2000982133/ and https://www.aamu.edu/about/inside-aamu/news/polk-exhibit-scheduled-at-aamu.html There should be a government or educational website somewhere we can sort through to find the picture. Searching for .mil shows four more results. Searching for site:org gives 120 results. Anyone know a better way to search for this specific image? Dream Focus 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- tineye.com and paste the image's url (not Wikipedia's file page); or images.google.com, click on the little camera icon, paste the url, and select "Find other sizes of this image: All sizes". I get better results with the less-cropped huffpost version, especially on google. —Cryptic 23:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found the image at The Miami Herald (Miami, Florida) 03 May 1995, Wed Page 180 [1] The image is used as part of a museum exhibit. Far more is written at The Miami Herald (Miami, Florida) 09 Dec 1993, Thu Page 275 [2] showing this historical photograph as part of the The Miami Museum of Science display titled "The Tuskegee Airmen: WWII's Black Aviators". Various newspapers use it, the museum uses it, anyone publishing a book can freely use it, it is clearly public domain. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is used a lot" is not the same as "public domain". Press agency photos are also used a lot. And now the earliest example of publication is 1995, which still falls out of scope for the PD-US no notice tag. Why not use one of the other photos that is clearly marked as a US Air Force photo? OH right, because then it couldn't be levereged to try and save the AfD. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what would you know! The Independent calls it an Associated Press photo here (scroll through the gallery). This website also attributes it to the AP, as does an official PBS tumblr account post. Press agencies will sometimes provide PD photos to newspapers, but we should have rock solid proof that it actually is PD before trying to compete with AP. Note that even our policy on non-free content at WP:NFCI forbids the use of press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Associated Press own it, or just give them something from public domain? Is there any way to find out? Dream Focus 00:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...between 1923 and 1963, a published item like a photo had to have a copyright notice, the copyright had to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and — for protection to still exist today — the registration would have had to have been renewed. And, according to the Library of Congress — home of the U.S. Copyright Office itself — “only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed.” That may not be true of every image but it’s certainly true of most of the older news service photos." The legal Genealogist. We can do this all day, but I do not be a a party to another food fight. Battling all across the project with untold Terabytes filling the WP servers - all of this to help diminish the notability of a bonafide war hero. It is a shame :( Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: That's my point exactly, is that we don't know. I wish there was an obvious way of finding out, I'm not aware of any methods. @Lightburst: You're quoting that on the assumption that the photo was published between 1923 and 1963. The earliest example we have of it being published is 1995. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle Maybe you will allow us to put it back in the article now? Clearly published and Willie H. fuller is clearly identified. No copyright asserted. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I still don't think PD is 100% proven per se (since nothing actually says that it is) but I suppose that's good enough. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you faulting me for being cautious about a press agency photo? You repeatedly lied to say it was a US Gov photo despite having no evidence to support that assertion, and it took all this discussion to finally drag out the photos origins. I think caution was perfectly warranted. At any rate, as long as the details on the file have been updated I think we can call this one a day. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2021 (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:A screenshot of Smalltalk-76.png[edit]

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) is/are significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to di-replacable-fair-use this, but since it is used on a couple of articles where this would be useful, I think it would be good to have a discussion about this. For each of the uses listed, only Xerox Alto seems like the one most in line with our WP:NONFREE policy. The rest should be removed. And even Xerox Alto's usage may possibly not be in line with our non-free policy. That is my reason for listing this for discussion. Aasim (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to see what a Smalltalk-76 desktop looks like, but it's a very high hurdle for a casual visitor to Wikipedia. Trying to talk about the history of Window-Icon-Mouse-Pointer (a.k.a. WIMP) based GUIs and the desktop metaphar without this image tends to result in reality being twisted by history revisioners, especially fan of Apple and Jobs. It is very important to show this image at key points, and I hope you understand. SUMIM.ST 9:55, 6 October 2021 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUMIM.ST (talk • contribs)

The main concerns here are NFCC 1 and NFCC 8. NFCC 1 prohibits uses where text would suffice. NFCC 8 prohibits uses that would not increase understanding of a topic. Aasim (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2021 (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.