Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 14

Files for discussion/2018 June 14
Identifiers
	IUPAC name (2S)-2-[[(3aS,7aS)-1-[2-[(2S)-2-[[(2S)-; 2-[[2-[[(4R)-1-[1-[2-[[(2R)-2-amino-5-(diaminomethylideneamino); pentanoyl]amino]-5-(diaminomethylideneamino)pentanoyl]pyrrolidine-; 2-carbonyl]-4-hydroxypyrrolidine-2-carbonyl]amino]acetyl]amino]-; 3-thiophen-2-ylpropanoyl]amino]-3-hydroxypropanoyl]; 3,4-dihydro-1H-isoquinoline-3-carbonyl]; 2,3,3a,4,5,6,7,7a-octahydroindole-2-carbonyl]amino]-; 5-(diaminomethylideneamino)pentanoic acid;
Chemical and physical data
Formula	C59H89N19O13S
Molar mass	1304.52 g/mol g·mol−1
3D model (JSmol)	Interactive image;
	SMILES C1CC[C@H]2[C@@H](C1)CC(N2C(=O)C3CC4=CC=CC=C4CN3C(=O)[C@H](CO)NC(=O)[C@H](CC5=CC=CS5)NC(=O)CNC(=O)C6C[C@H](CN6C(=O)C7CCCN7C(=O)C(CCCN=C(N)N)NC(=O)[C@@H](CCCN=C(N)N)N)O)C(=O)N[C@@H](CCCN=C(N)N)C(=O)O;
	InChI InChI=1S/C59H89N19O13S/c60-37(14-5-19-67-57(61)62)48(82)72-38(15-6-20-68-58(63)64)52(86)75-22-8-18-43(75)54(88)77-30-35(80)26-44(77)50(84)70-28-47(81)71-40(27-36-13-9-23-92-36)49(83)74-41(31-79)53(87)76-29-34-12-2-1-10-32(34)24-46(76)55(89)78-42-17-4-3-11-33(42)25-45(78)51(85)73-39(56(90)91)16-7-21-69-59(65)66/h1-2,9-10,12-13,23,33,35,37-46,79-80H,3-8,11,14-22,24-31,60H2,(H,70,84)(H,71,81)(H,72,82)(H,73,85)(H,74,83)(H,90,91)(H4,61,62,67)(H4,63,64,68)(H4,65,66,69)/t33-,35+,37+,38-,39-,40-,41-,42-,43-,44-,45?,46+/m0/s1 ; Key:QURWXBZNHXJZBE-OVZQYVDUSA-N ;
	(what is this?) (verify)

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14[edit]

File:Flag of Largo, Florida.gif[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 2018 June 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Largo, Florida.gif (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:Ed "Too Tall" Jones meets Ed Jones (racing driver).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 G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image being used on a disambiguation page. Use is purely decorative. Whpq (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It helps users navigate to the two of the three most common targets of the disambiguation page, as shown [1] here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation is perfectly fine without the use of this non-free image. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free images are only permitted in articles, not disambiguation pages (WP:NFCC#9). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No way to justify this type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#9 or WP:NFCC#1. This probably should've just been removed without any discussion. Also, the rationale's claim that this is a historically significant meeting between two sportspersons with the same name is just WP:OR and WP:ITSHISTORIC; an interesting meeting perhaps, but nothing historical about it all unless reliable sources are saying so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The removal was reverted. --Whpq (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re-adding it to a WP:DAB page was inappropriate and a clear violation of WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#1, but it could be seen as a good-faith mistake by made by someone who is unfamilair with WP:NFCC. Removing the file does from that page not require any discussion, and it could even be argued that this is a candidate for speedy deletion as replaceable non-free content per WP:F7. However, since where here now, removing the image again or tagging the file with {{rfu}} will only likely further exacerbate the situation at this point; so, it's best to leave to an admin to take care of.

The only real merit to discussing this here is to determine whether it could possibly be used in Ed Jones (racing driver); however, that is something which would require a very strong justification for non-free usage to meet NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8; in other words, there would have to be specific critical commentary of this particular photo somehwere within that article supported by multiple independent reliable sources to justify this type of use. I don't see how it can be done, but maybe someone else does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of WP:NFCC#7: non-free files must be used in at least one article, and per WP:NFCC#9, a disambiguation page is not an article. Additionally, violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9, as stated by others. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as uploader It is now clear to me that attempting to use historical fair use was a stretch at best. I had no other reason to upload the file other than to add it to the disamb page, which apparently is in itself an NFCC vio. Thank you for clarification. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion requested under criteria G7. Please close this. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2018 (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:Bros2017.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 2018 June 24. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bros2017.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:Flickr screenshot.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: Removed collapsed box on Flickr; also WP:TRAINWRECK. Seems like the original issue was resolved when the file(s) was/were removed from Flickr. Any issues with the present use of each file on their website's article is more amenable to an individual discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free screenshot image is hidden by default in article Flickr, indicating that its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of this article, thus violating WP:NFCC#8. Wcam (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam: I was updating the infobox in the Flickr article to the standards of articles such as Facebook and Twitter that use collapsible options in their infoboxes in the exact same way. I find it objectively unfair that I'm being singled out here. To make this discussion on a seemingly widespread practice more fair, I've added nominations for files used in this exact same manner on articles for major websites. In addition to the uploaders of the files nominated for discussion, I've pinged to the discussion the following contributors:

CFCF and Frietjes as the top two contributors to {{Infobox website}}, the infobox template at the center of this discussion
Checkingfax and QuackGuru as active major contributors to Wikipedia, which currently uses a collapsed free use screenshot
LocalNet and Versageek as the most recent active (2017) major contributors to Google Search, which currently uses a collapsed free use screenshot
ElKevbo as an active major contributor to Facebook, which currently uses a collapsed screenshot
Ianmacm as an active major contributor to Twitter and YouTube, which currently use collapsed screenshots
Mahmudmasri, as an active major contributor to LinkedIn, which currently uses a collapsed screenshot
Mandishaa, as an active major contributor to Yahoo!, which currently uses a collapsed screenshot
Gary, who non-controversially added the collapsible function to Wikipedia's infobox on June 22, 2010 (8 years ago)
Wikien2009, who non-controversially added the collapsible function to Google Search's infobox on April 26, 2012 (6 years, 2 months ago)
SolarStarSpire, who non-controversially added the collapsible function to Pornhub's infobox on August 19, 2014 (3 years, 10 months ago)
Grapesoda22, who non-controversially added the collapsible function to the articles for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn on November 22, 2016 (1 year, 6 months ago), along with Yahoo! on October 9, 2017‎ (8 months ago)

So, the problem Wcam is concerned about is the use of the collapsed parameter for non-free screenshots used in applications of {{Infobox website}}. Personally, I think the use of the parameter is a good design choice, as it helps unclutter the infobox, while giving the user the option to view a screenshot of the website if they want to. However, I recognise there's been concerns raised multiple times across Wikipedia about how much info should be crammed into the infobox. While I would agree having screenshots in a collapsed state is the best option, others may disagree and would say leave it open and uncollapsed as default so that users can identify straight away the website in which the article discusses. Either that, or they would say to get rid of screenshots in the infobox entirely as they barely contribute to an average reader's knowledge of a particular website and further clutters the infobox. I think it's good to have some sort of consensus on this topic; what do you guys think about screenshots in {{Infobox website}}? Collapsed, uncollapsed, or removed entirely? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that collapsed screenshots are the best way to show them in the article. Website screenshots serve an important purpose on Wikipedia, for example they can show what the website previously looked like, as the case with File:Thefacebook.png shown on the Facebook article and can also be shown to people in an area where that specific website is blocked. Daylen (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attempt to use WP:OTHERCONTENT as a tool in a content dispute. I haven't got anything much against collapsed screenshots.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ianmacm — I don't find it to be that at all. This is about standard use, and it would not be the first time a screenshot is deleted because "we have a logo". Screenshots serve a purpose, fall under the doctrine of fair use (and they do not illustrate the same thing as the logo does, so there is nothing stopping us from having 2 fair use images in the same article) — and putting them up for deletion all the time like this is detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Like several others above, I also find the use of collapsed infoboxes very useful. Just to pull another analogy, you have the SMILES and InCHi data which are also collapsed. This isn't about OTHERSTUFF, this is about precedent. These things are on occasion okay.

Take a look at this infobox to see a good case of hidden information in the infobox. The important thing is that the information exists, and that is displayed. Whether the reader chooses to click on it is of lesser concern, and when we know that very few readers will do so, it is a good idea to hide it. Carl Fredrik^talk 08:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~all~~ most as copyright violations since they contain individual images that are not under copyright by the website, but rather require separate non-free rationales, per {{Non-free web screenshot}}. wumbolo ^^^ 11:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a rationale under any interpretation of fair use law, and it has no support in any Wikipedia policy. In addition it's also false, the Twitter login page shows nothing of the sort. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but it is based on a Wikimedia Commons policy and WP:NFCC#3a, so we can conclude that we should issue a non-free rationale for each individual picture in the screenshots, which we cannot do because it fails the minimal use criterion. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PhilipTerryGraham for tagging me. I just (re-?)added the criticism section as it appears that advocates have removed it. Anyway, I think that having a screen shot or collapsible items to the infobox depends on each case. In Chemistry and when we have loads of different transliterations and names, they should be collapsed by default, but a poster of a movie or an album, it should be visible by default. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the screenshot should be visible by default. If hiding a certain piece of information is "the best way to show them in the article", it is a strong indication that such information is not really that essential to the article topic, because the underlying assumption is that hiding the information is the best way of presenting the article to the readers. Otherwise, one would not want to hide such information at all. This is also in line with the idea of WP:DUE, which is also referenced in Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion. --Wcam (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flickr, DeviantArt, Pornhub, and Youtube, as they include unambiguous copyrighted works other than that for which the NFCC would apply (i.e. the image is not being used to illustrate those works). Keep Twitter as the only one that definitely does not have other works. Keep Reddit because while it contains other copyrighted works, they're practically invisible and therefore there's a solid de minimis argument. Probably delete Polygon and Yahoo, as I would be surprised if their use of the images on the page were not either fair use or licensed from a third party owner. Unclear regarding Facebook and LinkedIn. With Facebook, the question is whether we should consider Mark Zuckerberg's profile pics to have a separate copyright from Facebook; for LinkedIn, the question is whether those are real users' images or LinkedIn's own advertising property. Ultimately I don't think any of this should hinge on the stylistic decision of whether or not to collapse -- a screenshot has been pretty well established as a legitimate use for articles about websites, and stylistic decisions about how to display them can happen elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (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:Walter Runciman.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 2018 June 24. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Runciman.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.

Non-free road signs used in list article[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: Remove from list articles. OK, it seems like we don't have firm evidence that these files are currently in the public domain owing to disagreement about the status of a OTRS ticket and insufficient information on publication/design dates. Thus there is no consensus to change the license away from "Non-free". There is no consensus either that the images satisfy WP:NFLISTS or WP:NFCC#8 when used in list articles, and "as they pose an enormous amount of significance to the page" is a weak argument. Since non-free policy discourages using non-free images except in particular cases, it seems like lack of consensus here should mean removal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of highway signs being used in List of British Columbia provincial highways. Each of the files is being used in a stand-alone article about the highways in question as the primary means of identification in the main infobox. This type of decorative usage in more general list articles, however, is almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost never provided and the usage is more decorative than not. The files were removed per WP:NFCCE for lacking the non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. Rationales have since been added for two of the three articles, but the primary justification for their use as explained at User talk:Fhsig13#Non-free image use is that they are they are significant to this particular page as well as a bit of WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. I believe the rationales were added in good-faith; I just think this type of non-free use can be justified per current policy and moreover appear to just be copied-and-pasted ones which don't really specifically address the particular ways the files are being used. Suggest keep for the stand-alone articles where the files are being used and remove from the list article.

However, there might be some question as to whether these files need to be treated as non-free content to begin with. If it's possible to convert them to {{PD-Canada}} as some of the other files used in the article are licensed, then there would be no longer any non-free concerns and the files could be used. It should be noted though that a file such as File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is almost certainly not "own work", which is something requiring further discussion from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would include File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png as part of the larger discussion as to whether they should be classified as "non-free". On the ground, the representation of the these highways is shown by those shields, not the standard provincial shields, so I would argue that the usage is more than decorative. Trans-Canada shields are shown throughout (as well as Interstate, US, and SR route shields for US articles), so Yellowhead and Crowsnest shields should be r evisited. I'm not sure about the intricacies of image copyright law, but IMO that should be the end goal. MuzikMachine (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file's non-free use seems fine in the stand-alone articles about each route. It is only in the list article, where I feel their use is decorative. Whether they are actual representations of what is seen by drivers is a different question and if they are not then perhaps they shouldn't be being used in any articles regardless of their licensing. The "first goal" when it comes to using images on Wikipedia has to do with WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. This is what needs to be clarified before anything else because this is what basically determines whether a file may be kept and how it may be used if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: My point is that those images is what is seen by drivers, so files such as File:BC-3.svg, File:BC-5.svg, and File:Alberta Highway 3.svg actually provide an inaccurate representation of what drivers would see. As such, there should be some sort of solution to be able to include those images in other articles such as highway lists and road junction lists while maintaining WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. If they need to stay as non-free, then that's what it has to be; however if they are misclassified, then that should be explored. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use non-free versions of the actual shield imagery in the stand-alone articles about the individual routes themselves if they need to be treted as non-free for copyright license purposes. In such an article, the file would most likely be used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of the article. It's also likely that such an article would be the best place to include a sourced critical commentary about the shield (i.e., it's origin, design, etc.). This is a type of use commonly accepted for non-free logos and other non-free files, so I don't think it would be an issue as long as WP:NFCC#1 is met.

I don't think the same can be said about the list article where the file is being used to illustrate one entry among many. These entries just provide some basic information about each route and identification by name alone and links to the more detailed individual articles where more specific information, including the shield/signage used, is provided for the reader is more than sufficient. This is similar to the reasoning used when it comes to non-free cover art being used in discographies, bibliographies, filmographies and such. In such cases, non-free use only tends to be allowed when they are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary within the list article as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. This type of use is not exactly the same as using a non-free album cover in a discography article, but it's similar enough in my opinion for the same reasoning to be applied.

If the files being used in the individual articles are incorrect, then they should be replaced. In the list article, however, any PD file's currently used in that article are inaccurate representations can be removed as well, but removing them does not automatically mean replacing them with a non-free image: they simply can be replaced by a generic shield placeholder image, or no image at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: So what would be a workaround solution? I've seen some provincial highway shields where certain symbols were modified to vectors in order to become commons files. As far as the Yellowhead marker is concerned, how could that be done? What was done so the Trans-Canada highway shield could be used en masse? -- MuzikMachine (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what file your referring to when you say "Trans-Canada highway shield". As for changing pngs, etc. to vector versions, I think it would be better to use a official vector version released by the original copyright holder instead. There's some disagreement as to whether user-created svgs can be accepted as non-free use on Wikipedia, and while I see lots of vector-versions of logos uploaded to Commons as "own work", I think that quite a number of them just have yet to undergo a proper license view. Commons, like Wikipedia, runs on volunteer power and there are more files being uploaded than can be properly reviewed; so, many last for years before they are noticed. There was something about the Yellowhead image that I'd seen before, but I couldn't remember until now. A photo of it was discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:YellowheadShield.jpg and eventually was kept; there's also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png. Maybe there's some information in those two Commons DRs which can be helpful here. It should be pointed out though that File:Yellowhead.png is licensed as non-free, and that element is what seems to be the only thing copyrightable in the Yellowhead shield files; if that can be shown to be PD, then the others could also most likely be treated as PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Nevermind re: the Trans-Canada, it's more than 50 years old. Is there a process or form letter we can send to the BCMoT requesting permission to use the Yellowhead 5 shield as PD? -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, I moved your post because I think this is where you wanted it to go. If I'm wrong, please move it back. As for emailing someone, there is WP:ERP and c:COM:ET which can be used, but you can use your own wording as well. As long as you cover the main points of what makes ups a suitable free license for Commons use, then you should be fine. The BCMoT, however, cannot just declare that the file is PD/freely release for Wikipedia/educational purposes only; so, the BCMoT needs to undertand that they cannot restrict commercial or derivative use. Ideally, if they were tto agree to such a thing, the best thing would be for someone at the BCMoT to uploaded a version of the file to Commons using c:Commons:Upload Wizard; If they don't want to do this, however, then someone from the BCMoT will like have to email OTRS from some kind of official BCMoT address. This appears to be what SriMesh did with repsect to the Saskatchewan road signs discussed in those two Commons DRs I linked to above in my previous post. SriMesh seems to still be active editing so perhaps you can ask for some suggestions on how to best approach the BCMot on their user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention below, we have clearance for crown copyright, which is 50 years, January 1st, after publication. Provincial copyright falls under crown copyright. If there is any proof these signs existed in or prior to 1967, we have no issue and these are public domain. The question is whether we can find an example of these shields prior to then. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing the images, as they pose an enormous amount of significance to the page, an NO free equivalents exist. The sign for File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is my own work, as I saved a template of a blank Yellowhead sign, and added the number "16" myself, before uploading under it's current name. I will also add a non-free use rationales for File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg, I apologize for it not being there before, however I did not realize that it was implicated here. Lastly, I wish to add that if the owner of the images, (or the uploader), take issue with there use, I will gladly remove them. I suggest keep for the images in both the list, as well as the standalone articles. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do these pose an enourmous amount of significance to the page? Please clarify. The article is a list of highway/routes with a brief discription of each. Each of these routes has a stand-alone article which is linked to from the article, so if the reader wants to know more about each that is where they will go. The stand-alone articles is where the non-free can be used because that is where they are being used as the primary means of identification and that is where any sourced critical commentary about the sign's imagery, etc. is more likely to be found. A list article such as this is not really all that different from "List of notable people", "List of books by", "List of albums by","List of films by", "List of flags", "List of symbols of", etc.; this type non-free use of pictures of deceased persons, album covers, book covers, movie posters, flags, symbols, etc. in those types of articles is pretty much never allowed for the same reasons given above in my nomination statement.

You're also arguing that no free equivalents exist for any of these images, yet you state that File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is a free image which you created. I'm not sure it's free (more on that below); however, if it is, then you have indeed created a free equivalent which means you or someone else can repeat the process and do the same for the three non-free being discussed here. This would make keeping non-free verisions of the files also questionable per WP:NFCC#1. Even if they cannot be reproduced exactly, the official non-free version might be able to be kept for the stand-alone articles, and a user-created representation could possibly be created for use in the list article.

As for being your own work, I'm not so sure. If you're basing your "own work" on another copyrighted image, then there's a good chance it would be considered a derivative work. In that case, the copyright of the original work as well as the derivative need to be taken into account. If the original is something in the public domain or something released under a free license, you can license the derivative under a CC license; if not, then you need to have the permission of the not only the creator of the derivative, but also the original coyright holder to release the file under a free license. So unless you can show both, then there's a chance it will be deleted from Commons.-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we determine the age of these? If these were designed before December 31, 1967, they are public domain under federal law (which also applies to provincial governments, but not municipal). We have clearance from the Canadian government that expiration of crown copyright applies worldwide over URAA. If they are newer, I see no reason we can't use the generic shield on list articles. That withstanding, the use in the infobox of the article of the particular route qualify as acceptible free-use. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these can be converted to PD for one reason or another, then they would much easier to use in articles such as the list article because they would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Otherwise, I agree that a generic shield can and should be used in the list article; each list entry has a link and the reader can see the proper sign/shield there per item #6 of WP:NFC#UUI -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian: The Yellowhead Highway Association was founded in 1949, the are the origional copyright holders of the yellow head and trees logo. The various provinces produced their own variations within their respective highway templates. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the images, as they should not be removed until this discussion is closed. In addition, There are, as I stated, no free equivalents of these signs, and the Route 16 sign was one I made, yes, however I am not good enough at my editing to successfully recreate the rest. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A free equivlent image does not have to be recreated by you; it can be recreated by anyone. It also doesn't have to be recreated right at this moment; it can be created at anytime. What tends to matter with respect to WP:NFCC#1 is not that a free equivalent currently exists, but whether it's considered possible for someone somehwere to create one. Since you're saying you used a template to create the free equivalent image File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, then there's no reason somebody cannot do the same for File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg, and possibly the other files being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fhsig13: Are either File:Yellowhead.png or File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png the "template" you mentioned above that you used to create File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png ? Did you download either of those non-free files from Wikipedia, add the number "16", and then upload the your versoin to Commons? If that's the case, then I think you probably did create a derivative work. You can claim the derivative as "own work" and license it as such if you want, but I don't believe you can make the same claim for the original underlying imagery. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to this webpage, which redirects to here. It looks like the Yellowshield sign can be found here. Copyright for the all the content on that website is being claimed by the BC government here, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. If the original imagery is not PD or otherwise released under a free license, then I don't think Commons can keep your version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based upon the close of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, it now seems possible that the same OTRS ticket referred to in that discussion might also cover File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg. If that's the case, then file's use would no longer be subject to WP:NFCCP and it's licensing can be converted to an appropriate free license. However, this also seems to mean that File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png can now be used to create freely licensed derivatives, which means that any non-free files of the same Yellowhead shield imagery now fail WP:NFCC#1 and would need to be deleted if for some reason their licensing cannot be converted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I alluded to at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, Ticket:2011011410009399 covers all highway signs in Canada with an official statement that we shouldn't need permission, implying that the signs are Public Domain under Canadian copyright law, but cautioning that photographers should make sure they and passing motorists are safe while they are photographing the signs. Hours after that DR closed, I emailed the person who made that statement with copies to his CC recipients to update the ticket to modern standards per @Jcb's concern; I have not heard back from him, and the copies bounced with "no such user" errors (not surprising after seven years). I appreciate the abundance of caution used by uploaders, NFCC taggers, and the nominator in this case, but I do not think such caution is warranted in this case. — Jeff G. ツ 07:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As I posted at c:User talk:Jeff.G#Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, this discussion is not a deletion discussion per se, but rather has to do with the non-free use of these images in one particular article. If in your opinion the OTRS ticket covers these images, then that would mean they would no longer need to be non-free and thus no longer subject to WP:NFCCP. If that's truly the case, then the files' copyright tags should be converted to the license specified on the ticket. At the same time, if the OTRS ticket says that all Canadian road signs or at least all British Columbian road signs are PD, then these cannot be kept as non-free per WP:NFCC#1. So, if for some reason these cannot be converted from non-free to a free license (perhaps because technically they are not photographs), they will have to be deleted because someone could drive up to one of the actual signs and photograph them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 02:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Jeff G., can you answer Marchjuly's last post and the question contained therein?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from lists per WP:NFLISTS. The OTRS ticket does not specify a license (and wasn't directly sent by the copyright holder); therefore, they can't be used as free images (unless they are PD by other means mentioned above, which hasn't been proven). One cannot infer a license; it needs to be explicitly stated by the copyright holder. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is also for SK, not BC. I don't see how a representative for SK could speak for BC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, JJMC89, and Marchjuly: I think the files should be marked {{PD-Canada}} or {{PD-Canada-Crown}} due to age, lose their fair use rationales, and stay on the lists as a result of this discussion. Please see the ancillary discussion at User talk:Yunshui#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article and older discussions linked there. — Jeff G. ツ 12:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my response on Yunshui's user talk, but I'll summarize it here. Multiple OTRS volunteers have looked as this OTRS ticket and there is disagreement among them regarding its validity. This is not something non-OTRS volunteers cannot directly participate in because we are not privy to the same information. If, however, OTRS volunteers are unable to agree on the validity of the ticket, then maybe the files should remain non-free until a better ticket is received or subsequent discussions among OTRS volunteers reach a clear consensus that the ticket is acceptable. If the files are to remain non-free, then they are subject to WP:NFCCP, and WP:NFLISTS clearly discourages this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are PD due to age, that is one thing. (This needs to be proven.) There is no evidence that BC (or SK) disclaims copyright in the OTRS ticket. The email relates to SK, not BC. Even if it were for SK, the representative saying we don't need permission is not the same as disclaiming copyright. The ticket doesn't provide any statement of permission that Wikimedia can use (a direct release under a free license), so the ticket is useless. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repost this here since it's buried in one of my earlier posts on this thread and is easy to miss. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to this webpage, which redirects to here. It looks like the Yellowshield sign can be found here. Copyright for the all the content on that website is being claimed by the BC government here, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. So, if there's any information from those websites which can be used to show these images are PD because of their age or lack of complexity, then that's fine with me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 14 June 2018 (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.