Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

July 17

File:Angelina Lauro (former Oranje).jpg

A free alternative, File:"Angelina Lauro" - Tilbury, 1976.jpg, exists and is in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info, this image published by or for Linea C (Costa), and copyright A.G.I.S.SpA, Avegno, Genova. - Davidships (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and superseded. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I would modify the rationale to "To illustrate the MS Oranje during its time as a Costa Line cruise ship". In fact, I think that if only a single use can be permitted, the case for use in Costa Cruises is stronger. That is an article of greater general interest and where the image coverage of the whole historic fleet suffers from a few omissions. - Davidships (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thepleasuregarden1.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:The Pleasure Garden (1925) - poster.jpg on Commons. Ineligible for WP:CSD#F8 as they are not exact copies. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned version is also of horrible quality. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite it's poor resolution, image may be useful as a reference to restore the Commons poster, whose lighting contrast due to wrapping looks horrible in thumbnail. --Mayimbú (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHF European Cup 2024.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI17 since this logo is identical to the one used on the main event: File:EHF European Cup 2023.png. Jonteemil (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator reasoning. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHF European Cup 2024 2.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI17 since this logo is identical to the one used on the main event: File:EHF European Cup 2023.png. Jonteemil (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator reasoning, same as above. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roblox game screenshot.png

We need to determine whether or not the article Roblox needs a screenshot for visual identification. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also is this a valid reason for putting a file under discussion? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the venue for that, this is meant to be the file equivalent of WP:Articles for deletion. The proper venue would've been the talk page for the Roblox article since this is a content dispute. λ NegativeMP1 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a better photo would be of something such as the main page of the website or their logo. TaxidermyMan (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both would be good, as I still believe we need identification about what a game would look like. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've come to an agreement that we're happy with.

Keep AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be closed now? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marshalsea-wall-December2007.jpg

The file is located on Commons but it has not been deleted because uploader added a {{Keep local}}. The file is not used on the front page or heavily used so that is not the reason for the Keep local.

According to a message from 2008 the reason is that some files once were deleted on Commons. Especially if they were related to sensitive topics like animal rights. Therefore uploader liked to have files local to be able to monitor them.

Sadly the uploader User:SlimVirgin is deceased since more than three years ago so she can no longer monitor the files even if they are local. So the reason for the keep local is no longer there. I noticed that user did not object to a PROD of file 14 January 2021 so perhaps se did no longer worry so much.

Files with a keep local can’t be deleted per CSD F8 but should be nominated for deletion. Per other discussions like files uploaded by Spinningspark in Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_24#File:4-cube_4^4.png and the other discussions mentioned there, files can be deleted even if it has a keep local if uploader is no longer active and there is no other reason to keep it.

SlimVirgin have uploaded more files with a keep local and many of those are most likely on Commons so just like with the files uploaded by Spinningspark I suggest that the files can be deleted via a PROD so users can protest if they have good reasons to keep a file. MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newbury Park and Conejo Mountain twilight.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image already exists at commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/File:Newbury_Park_and_Conejo_Mountain_twilight_during_Springs_Fire.jpg Ternera (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local version is only even being used on the userpage of the uploader (who is eight years inactive). Furthermore, the uploader of the Commons version is the same user, with an identical timestamp. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent nominations

July 18

July 19

File:I Won't Back Down Sample.ogg

Fails WP:NFC#CS because this audio clip in the infobox is not the subject of commentary by reliable sources in the body of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of an article about a song that has an audio clip that is the subject of commentary by reliable sources?

Honestly though, do whatever you want. If removing a sample of a song that has been up for twelve years is your definition of improving Wikipedia, so be it. This is the sort of nonsense that makes people leave this place and not want to contribute. I wish people put as much effort into improving articles as they do tearing them down. Illinois2011 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running Out of Time (song) has a discussion of the song's composition and structure along with a brief audio sample that exemplifies what the source says. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris 2024 mascots.png

Whilst use of this image in The Phryges article is acceptable (as it is an article about the logo in question), the use of this image is not acceptable on 2024 Summer Olympics or 2024 Summer Paralympics, and so it should be removed from both of these articles. On the Olympics/Paralympics articles, it fails WP:NFCC#8, since there is only minimal text about them in each of these articles, and also the event logos do a better job of explaining the event via logo than the mascots do. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items, as the Olympics/Paralympics logos suffice. I note that previous logos are being used in previous Olympics/Paralympics articles, which I also think is wrong for the same reason- this is not an argument to keep these on all 3 articles, as per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photoshopped image that was once on the Alan MacMasters Wikipedia page.jpeg

The original source for this image is c:File:Alan MacMasters circa end of 19th century.jpg (now deleted). This image is currently tagged as {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}, but with a non-free use rationale. If the original Commons image was freely licensed, we can remove the non-free use rationale (and maybe transfer back to Commons with correct source/description info?). If it wasn't freely licensed, the screenshot would be fair use and the license would need to be changed. hinnk (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the Commons deletion discussion, this image appears to have been uploaded to Commons as a PD image with a hoax description of its source. Since it wasn't uploaded there under a CC license, unless it's been released elsewhere under such a license, I think we have to assume this is still under copyright and upload it here with a non-free use rationale. I think this image meets NFCCP. As for the screenshot tag, that's incorrect since it was taken from another website. This should just be a normal non-free use image template. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I agree with you that this would meet WP:NFCCP and am opening this discussion to figure out the appropriate licensing. hinnk (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For my reasons stated above, we should retain the image here under a non-free use image rationale and the image should not be uploaded to Commons. I also don't think the image should be in the infobox, but rather placed near the text that discusses the image itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SouthDakotaPlate.png

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio: publication of South Dakota state government, not the federal government. South Dakota is not one of the states that automatically releases all works into public domain. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per F9 and nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorthDakotaStandard.jpg

Copyvio, publication of North Dakota state government, not the federal government. North Dakota is not one of the states that automatically releases all works into public domain. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blake Moret - headshot 2023.jpg

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⚡ 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blake Moret - headshot 2023.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) Dode222 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in public domain - metadata specifies photo was taken in 2021 and the copyright holder does not seem to be the same as the uploader.

July 20

File:YoungBoy Never Broke Again live.webp

The uploader failed to provide confirmation or details to prove that this file is a creative common-sourced item so therefore it deserves a nomination for discussion, per WP:UNSOURCED. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 09:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern English Version - 2014 Thinline Reference Bible.png

The use rational doesn't apply to a specific publication of the book on the use case page Modern English Version as the image isn't the only example of the publication of the book. File needs to be deleted as a copyvio. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this ten years ago and do not remember the details. I do not know why I didn't use template:Non-free use rationale book cover. Maybe it wasn't available at that time? My understanding is that since this is the first edition of a book (in this case a specific translation of the Bible) the use of the cover for identification is valid for free use. While there are many modern English versions of the Bible, the name "Modern English Version" refers to a specific translation which was released in 2014, and this image is a low resolution image of that first edition's cover.

Does this image even meet the threshold of originality for copyright? It may be possible to move this to Commons if not. Grayfell (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olivia Benson (cat) in Me music video screenshot.jpg

The cat is alive, so it falls WP:NFCC#1. Additionally, the rationale doesn't justify the use: "To illustrate Taylor Swift's usage of her pets in her creative works" is incorrect since the file is illustrating the cat itself. "Necessary in order to differentiate from the television character of the same name." is not a purpose of a image, the articles' titles already fulfill that purpose. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Flor Contemplacion photos

"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded the cropped version as a better quality version of the image that was on site for years, i guess you can remove the "after arrest" pic ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cropped version, discard other. The uncropped one is poor as an identification image which it is currently being used for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fastily 05:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Life Among the Paiutes.png

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to upload this as a free file. Please delete the file as non free. I will now re-upload as a free file since the image is from 1883. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kheops-Pyramide web01.jpg

There is no clear source. First I thought uploader just made this to illustrate but there are older versions on the Internet but in a different size. For example https://www.building.co.uk/news/germany-to-build-largest-ever-pyramid/3094418.article MGA73 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

The Beatles – "Hello Goodbye"/"I Am the Walrus" single

Both files are replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:The Beatles - I Am The Walrus & Hello Goodbye ad.jpg per WP:NFCC#1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCWiesenthal (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it should stay on, as it was the photo sleeve for the single in the United States. It just makes sense, but it's all personal opinion, but in mine, it makes the most sense to keep it. 2603:8090:1504:278A:C552:21C5:700B:9430 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg

Don't think this qualifies as fair use - Commons has a significant collection of photos of Charles in Australia (e.g. commons:Category:2012 royal visit to Australia by Charles, Prince of Wales). The image itself is not the subject of any discussion in the articles in which it is used. The fact that a particular photograph is an "official" photo does not qualify it for fair use in and of itself. I T B F 💬 07:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this photo is not the subject of the article, nor is it necessary to provide readers understanding of the topic. We have many great photos of Charles which could successfully illustrate the article. The current non-free use rationale does not explain why this photo is not replaceable in this article. Consigned (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a lengthy conversation about this photo at WT:NFCC § File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg, but to summarise, an exact image with the same licencing caveat (CC BY 4.0 license [1] and a note of non-commercial use here [2]) already exists on WP, namely File:The Queen of Australia.jpg as a featured image.

The significance of the image and its irreplaceability is that, its the official portrait of king as king of Australia, to be used in all court rooms, government buildings and a copy for every citizen. [3] Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the other conversation, the licensing is different between the two photos. If this one were free then it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and not require fair use rationale.

Infoboxes don't need to contain an official portrait. This photo doesn't convey any more understanding of the topic Monarchy of Australia than any other photo of Charles (WP:NFCC8); the only unique understanding that it conveys is the understanding of what the portrait itself looks like, which would only be valid if the article were Official portrait of King Charles III of Australia. Consigned (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also asked about this at c:COM:VPC#File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg to check whether this might be OK to upload to Commons, but right now it doesn't seem like it is. The "copyright and disclaimer" webpage cited above does state that it the general Creative Commons licensing for the website doesn't necessarily apply to content originating with third-parties hosted by the website. Whether the same conditions also were in effect at the time the "Queen of Australia" was uploaded to Commons is unknow, but that's a different image and concerns about its licensing will need to be discussed over at Commons. One thing that might be worth checking on is to see whether the image was posted also on some official Buckingham Palace website/social media account, under perhaps an acceptable free license. For British MPs, for example, official images posted at members.pariliment.uk/members/commons are released under a {{CC-by-3.0}} license which is fine for Commons and is why there's c:Category:Official United Kingdom Parliamentary photographs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-free content. Creative Commons licenses that place restrictions on commercial and derviative reuse aren't free enough for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and are, thus, treated as non-free. As pointed about above and in the abover-referenced discussion at WT:NFCC, there's no need for a non-free file such as this to be used when the freely licensed File:King Charles III (July 2023).jpg (the image being used in Monarchy of Australia prior to being replaced by this non-free one) seems more the sufficient for primary identification purposes. The only way in which I could see policy would allow this particular non-free image to be kept and used would be if the image was somehow the subject of source critical commentary in its own right (e.g. some controversy associated with the image); for example, something along the lines of the photoshop controversy involving the recent Mother's Day images taken of Catherine, Princess of Wales. Even in that case, it wouldn't really be OK to use in the main infobox, but would be better suited for a sub-section about the photo and any controversey or critical commentary associated with it along the lines of items #7 to #9 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the portrait was cropped shot that only Charles' head with the Order of Australia was shown, this would satisfy WP:NFCCP. My thoughts on the criteria likely in dispute:
1. No free equivalent: There is no other photo of Charles that shows him as King of Australia. As the page is about the role of the Australian monarch and the monarchy as an institution, a photo of Charles as an individual without anything Australian wouldn't properly represent the page. Even if he later visits Australia, he is unlikely to be wearing anything like the Order of Australia that could lead to a photo that meaningfully distinguish him as King of Australia. (Unless he rocks up in an Akubra and ugg boots of course.) As the current image is too zoomed out to be able tell that the image is Australian, I don't think it currently satisfies this criterion.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities: The image is not available for commercial use.
3. Minimal usage: The use would be minimal as only a reduced cropped section would be used in the infobox.
8. Contextual significance: Similar to my arguments for 1., an image would increase readers understanding of the topic by giving an image of Charles as King that is distinct from his role in other countries. As the page is about the monarchy of Australia, an image of Charles that is identical to all the other pages on him or that doesn't visible identify him as monarch of Australia would make it less clear that Charles' role in Australia is independent from his roles in other countries. This image that shows Charles with Australian symbolism however would indicate this separation and reduce confusion.
Safes007 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is File:Order of Australia.svg the same Order of Australia you're referring to above? If it is, then that's a freely licensed image that could be added to the article about the monarchy. I don't think a non-free image showing the King with the Order pinned to his suit jacket is really needed to understand either (1) he's King Charles III or (2) he's the King of Australia. Moreover, I think (2) can be more than sufficiently understood simply from the article's content and the sources being cited to verify that content. In addition, Wikipedia went many years without an image being used in the main infobox of Kim Jong Un until a freely licensed one was taken and uploaded to Commons. So, I'm not too sure that non-existence of a currently available photo the KIng of as the King of Austrailia is sufficient for FREER's purposes. The default has never been simply to use a non-free until a free equivalent image can be found when it comes to living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file Order of Australia.svg isn’t an appropriate image as that’s a national honour (like the Order of the British Empire) that can be awarded to any Australian. I mentioned it because Charles is wearing one around his neck indicates the photo is of him as the Australian monarch. It doesn’t represent the Australian monarchy by itself.
Also, the page Monarchy of Australia is not a biography about a living person like Kim Jong Un. It is about an institution and role that by its hereditary nature has the current monarch as its primary symbol. If there was another symbol that represented the Australian monarchy as an institution (like the Canadian Royal Crown for the Canadian monarch or something like the seal of the US president or the papal arms) a photo wouldn’t be needed. The "encyclopedic purpose" is to represent the institution of the Australian monarchy broadly through being placed in the infobox, not simply to identify the individual of Charles as the Australian monarch. The image being more of a symbol of the institution, rather than a replaceable image of the individual, is indicated by the picture's description as the "Official Australian" portrait and its inclusion as "nationhood material" to be distributed to citizens, alongside flags, national anthem recordings and other symbols booklets. I think your comments would be more applicable if we were talking about adding the picture to the Charles III page to convey the information you suggested. Safes007 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the "medallion" of "order" around the King's neck is what is significant in that picture, then perhaps a non-free photo of that would be more appropriate for the main infobox than a non-free picture of the King and the "order". The policies and guidelines of the Australian government with respect to the "nationhood material" or this particular photograph only really matter to Wikipedia (at least in my opinion) in that they help to determine the copyright status of the photo; they don't, however, mean (again in my opinion) Wikipedia is obligated to use this photo in any way. The non-commercial restrictions placed on the photo mean it needs to be treated as non-free which in turn means it needs to meet all ten WP:NFCCP. I don't think it meets FREER, but perhaps others will feel differently and agree with your assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are free images of the Order of Australia at Commons:Category:Order of Australia. I don't think a photo of Charles wearing it is crucial to the understanding of the topic Monarchy of Australia. If it is critical, it could be shown by having two images in the infobox, a free photo of Charles and a free photo of the order next to it. Consigned (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rules for Radicals.png

This image only contains simple text/shapes and is thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. License should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. If it is complex enough to qualify for copyright protection, a simple alternative cover (shown on websites such as Amazon) should be used instead per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First edition covers are preferred per Template:Infobox book. Not sure if the shapes are simple enough to qualify as a {{PD-textlogo}}, but replacing it with an image from a modern publisher is suboptimal. gobonobo + c 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

File:Sisterhood of Karn in the Night of the Doctor.jpg

Exists solely for illustrative purposes, and does not benefit a specific aspect of the article in a significant manner. While I do feel an image could be used in this article, this image feels largely unneeded and does not greatly benefit readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wishtreesign.JPG

I relicensed this as {{Cc-by-3.0}} but Graeme Bartlett reverted my relicensing to the original licensing, {{Photo_of_art|{{Cc-by-3.0|FU FUN|dw=yes}}||{{Non-free 2D art|image has rationale=yes}}}} because they thought that there is enough on the sign to be copyrightable. I don't see what on this sign would be above c:COM:TOO US, it's just normal, unstylized text and nothing else. Jonteemil (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the quantity of text that is the problem. There are two small paragraphs of text. Enough so that no one would have written that particular text before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you are saying that the message itself is what's copyrightable, not the particular reproduction of the message? Would that really be applicable on this work that is just an info sign and not a work of art? That seems far-fetched however I'm no lawyer. Jonteemil (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Footer

Today is July 24 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 24 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===July 24===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.