Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 18

< July 17	July 19 >

July 18[edit]

File:Alliance Media Tanzania.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contributed by 816phloh, a confirmed sock-puppet of Morning277

also source and author lines are contradictory —rybec 05:58, 18 July 2013 (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:RUR.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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is not the copyright holder and there is no source information Werieth (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion. This is a copyright free drawing. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the upload summary was Scanned in by ~~~~ I doubt it is a drawing by the uploader. Werieth (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a statement saying that the image was "Scanned in by MJB 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)". This implies that the uploader just scanned an image he had found somewhere else. There is no evidence that the underlying image is free. He might have made the drawing himself and then scanned it, but then he would presumably have used a very different wording. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supposition. You cannot say for sure whether the author drew it himself or if it was a free use file already in existence. In either case it doesn't change the fact that it's a free use item. You cannot make decisions based on supposition. You need to be absolutely positive. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the uploader made the underlying drawing. Without any information about where the underlying image comes from, this can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F4. See {{di-dw no source no license}} --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer I can immediately replace this image with another under Crown Copyright "fair use" licencing. Would you like me to do that? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a coat of arms. Coats of arms are defined in text by a blazon. Blazons are in the public domain (see Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason)), so anyone can create a freely licensed drawing of a coat of arms. See the text on Commons: "This means that anybody can draw a new coat of arms from a definition without copyright constraints: the "derivative work" notion simply doesn't apply in that case." As anyone can draw a freely licensed version of the coat of arms, any unfree version of the coat of arms automatically violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's indisputably a drawing of a British military cap badge/insignia. I cannot find it anywhere else on the internet so I can only assume that the original uploader drew it himself. As he's no longer active I can't check that. As British military cap badges have formed much of the discussion recently I think there needs to be a distinct formula for using them. Is it acceptable for example to post one badge under minimal use with Crown Copyright as the licence? When is a drawing of a cap badge/insignia acceptable? It's been a bit of a minefield for me so I would appreciate any help given. In the meantime I will seek advice from the Crown Copyright office. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it cannot be found on the internet doesnt mean its not copyrighted. There are thousands of books and other media that have yet to make the digital conversion. Wikipedia's default position is to assume non-free until otherwise proven. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a website some years ago which specialised in the production of British military cap badges in this fashion, a drawing of the badge with the background being the tie colours of the unit. I can remember using some of the badges myself. I can no longer find the site but I assume this is where this badge has come from. Can we perhaps resolve this issue by me updating the image with one which has Crown Copyright and is properly sourced? Would this then be acceptable for use also in the "Badge Comparison" image used on the UDR website? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the current version is a photo of a 3d pin/sculpture, and not a drawing. User:SonofSetanta has uploaded a new version of the image, making the previous discussion moot. But SonofSetanta has not said when his version was created, and I can't tell if it's under copyright or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:49, 25 July 2013 (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:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.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: Deleted; file has been replaced with File:Ulster Defence Regiment Insignia.jpg. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Also needs permission from the photographer as it is a photo of a 3D object. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion This file doesn't violate NFCC because it is an image of the badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the article which it is placed in. Its creation and description is well covered in the text of the section it is in. Removal of this image would most definitely be detrimental to the reader. It complies with minimal use and in fact I have the permission of the copyright holder, whose website it was taken from, to use the image along with a selection of other images he supplied for the same purpose. It can be e-mailed to "permissions" straight away. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero discussion about the badge, and blazons are in the public domain, so free replacements can be created, as has already been done with File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg is an acceptable alternative to the use of File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg and that it is an acceptable and unchallengeable free file/blazon? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the suggested replacement has been nominated for deletion on Commons. There seems to be a reasonable justification for having some sort of image of the cap badge/insignia, whether free or non-free, at least on the main UDR article.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe there is a reasonable justification. I have stated my case on several pages that even a Crown Copyright image on ALL the UDR articles would be acceptable under "minimal use" as there are so many UDR battalions. In the absence of this my only alternative is to use a free image across the spread of articles which, whilst acceptable, isn't as aesthetically appealing as the image of the metal badge. The use of military info boxes however is to confirm at a glance the content of the article. The unit's badge is always best. I disagree with the way this is being handled and would prefer to see participation on the article talk page at Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. Improvement of the wiki is what is at stake here and I'm upset that my efforts are being dragged down to this level. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg appears to be a coat of arms. Coats of arms are defined in text by a blazon. Blazons are in the public domain (see Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason)), so anyone can create a freely licensed drawing of a coat of arms. See the text on Commons: "This means that anybody can draw a new coat of arms from a definition without copyright constraints: the "derivative work" notion simply doesn't apply in that case." As anyone can draw a freely licensed version of the coat of arms, any unfree version of the coat of arms automatically violates WP:NFCC#1. File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg is just a variation of the coat of arms turned into a badge, and there is no discussion about the coat of arms in badge form, so the extra information provided by the badge violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not possible to make a copy as its copyrighted - no possible replacement. Here on Wikipedia we care about OR.Moxy (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the case. A drawn image is apparently quite acceptable and falls into the "free" category. That's what I've been told by Sodacan and others. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the "replacement" version has been nominated for deletion on Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:51, 25 July 2013 (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:Joel goldman fedora.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: Deleted under speedy criterion F9 and F11. Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for use declined by copyright holder as stated at OTRS #2013071810001357. Cindy(talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio (permission refused = automatically a copyvio surely?).--ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- G12 is for textual copyright violations. Use F9 for images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2013 (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:The More You Know 2011.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: Kept and re-tagged as PD-text-logo. Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OB, replaced by The More You Know Logo 2013.jpg Jh3555 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not tagged -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still untagged. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably still of historical interest, and probably not copyrightable due to consisting only of basic geometric shapes and text. Suggest moving to Commons. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (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:NBB Cyndi Lauper.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just use an actual free image of Cyndi Lauper from Commons instead of this screenshot? Do we really need to use a screenshot of Lauper's cameo to give reader prove she was actually in the movie? I don't think so, especially if it has the text "www.thenakedbrothersbands.com" on it. An free image of Lauper is enough. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we shouldn't use any old image of Cyndi Lauper for the film article. So regardless of whether this particular image of her is deleted or not, any other image of her should be one from the set of the movie or from the movie itself, if we're going t use one. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a picture of Cyndi Lauper to prove she was in the movie, as that should be sourced in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8.Beerest355 Talk 19:29, 20 July 2013 (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.