Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 13

September 13

File:NIAX 404 Wtvl 05-2003.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with BMRR U18B. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2023 (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.

File:Niax407-070502.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with BMRR U18B. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2023 (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.

File:Liga Malaysia Logo 2004.png

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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding — Ирука¹³ 02:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even more specifically, this is a former logo, no longer in use (and if the unsourced statements in the article are to be believed, no logo is currently in use); the "purpose of use" in the non-free-use rationale is inapplicable boilerplate; this seems to be plainly above the threshold of originality; and there's no sourced commentary in the article about this specific image, which might have mitigated the matter. All of these are also true of the other image in the article, File:Liga Malaysia Logo 2011.jpg, which has been in similar limbo since their trip to DRV - ack - three years ago now. Delete. —Cryptic 03:02, 13 September 2023 (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.

File:SMS Irene NH 48218.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: No consensus -FASTILY 09:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the photo, date of shooting and publication are unknown. The licensing status of a photo outside the US cannot be determined. The file should be relicensed as {{PD-USonly}}. — Ирука¹³ 03:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why this was brought here in lieu of a discussion on the image's talk page. That said, I assume this is similar to {{PD-US-alien property}}. So let's add {{Do not move to Commons}} to help patrollers, but there's no need for PD-USonly as the current tag does a better job of explaining this particular scenario. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader and I have already discussed similar cases. Who else is on the talk pages of one of a million files?

I don’t understand, are you proposing to license the file with mutually exclusive templates? One says - file is PD (worldwide), the second - file is not PD (worldwide). While PD-USonly says both of these things in a normal way.

Where does the current template prohibit uploading a file to Commons? — Ирука¹³ 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer PD-because because it gives the specific reason why it's considered to be in the public domain in a certain location. That benefits re-users more than a boilerplate. I'm not against editing PD-because's text, and I'm not clear by PD-USonly is the only way or the highway? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn’t you like the option of moving the NHHC-text to the “Permission” section? — Ирука¹³ 04:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 - Iruka is under the mistaken impression that {{PD-because}} is invalid - they have attempted multiple FfDs, using multiple different arguments that have all been slapped down by several people as invalid. They would be better served by attempting to MfD the template and moving on when that attempt is inevitably rejected. I have previously tried to discuss this with them on their talk page, but they abandoned that discussion and began nominating images that I and others have uploaded using {{PD-because}}. These repeated FfDs are tendentious and are stretching AGF.
Iruka13 : here is the problem with using PD-USOnly: you are making an affirmative decision that these images are not PD worldwide, when you have no evidence that they aren't PD worldwide. There also is no evidence that they aren't. There simply isn't proof one way or the other. You seem intent on forcing square pegs into round holes, but what you are actually doing with these tendentious nominations, is wasting the time of people like me who could be using it for more productive things like writing articles. Please stop. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaand, why am I wrong doing that decision?

"This file is free content in the United States but non-free or potentially non-free in its country of origin."

I really love PD-because; especially the part about "validation" and a "more accurate license tag". — Ирука¹³ 12:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong because you are making an assumption. If you really feel that strongly about these images, why don't you spend your time researching them to determine what their actual copyright status is?

Funny, the thought occurred to me to see if you were active on Commons, and guess what I found? You were indeffed there for exactly the same behavior you're doing here. Moving from discussion to discussion, abandoning them when you've realized you won't "win" (like you did here and in our original discussion on your talk page). How long do you expect to continue behaving this way? Have you learned nothing from last year? Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in the public domain only in US. If you try to upload it to Commons, you will get the same thing you got the previous times - the need to restore them to Wikipedia and make additions as indicated above. — Ирука¹³ 07:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? I didn't move the image you linked to Commons, because I understand copyright law. I also got Magog to delete the transferred image. Not at all clear how you think this proves your point. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to. People who are less knowledgeable about copyright will continue to move them. They see the allowing tag and do not see the prohibiting/warning tags (because you don’t put them and you forbid others to put them). By placing these homemade license tags, you are simply adding unnecessary work to yourself and your colleagues. — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; the burden on anyone moving an image from any wiki to Commons is to understand copyright law. If people are uploading images to Commons without a proper understanding of copyright law, that is their mistake, not mine.

And let's drop the strawmen. I haven't "prohibited" anyone from adding {{Do not move to Commons}} - in fact, Ed suggested that above, and you rejected the idea. And moreover, in cases where I do know the image is still copyrighted in the country of origin, I do use the tag (see for example File:Marsala illustration.jpg or File:SMS Bayern sinking2.jpg). Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world. We're not in it.

In your imagination. In the real world, I think files with homemade licenses and a "don't move to Commons" template are better than what they are now. But worse than with the "PD-USonly" template.

It's funny: you don't know the licensing status of the second file, but you still put the correct tag. — Ирука¹³ 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wow! I didn't look into the history of the first file. You are really ready to put the correct license tag only after your file starts being ~~deleted~~ moved to Commons. — Ирука¹³ 13:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the burden thing where “I designate files whose licensing status outside the US is unknown to me as files in the public domain throughout the world”? — Ирука¹³ 13:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At what point in all this pettifoggery are we going to return to the topic of this image?

What makes you think I don't know the status of the second image in the country of origin?

And what makes you think the usage of {{PD-because}} implies that the copyright is expired worldwide? Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, who likes to discuss my blockages, the contents of my head and my personal life.

I got telepathy from you.

Because that's what it says in it. — Ирука¹³ 04:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote me the place in the template that it says the image is PD worldwide. And then explain why you think a US government entity would care about copyright laws outside of the US. They don't in the slightest, no more than a British or French entity cares about US copyright. Have you ever found a foreign database that lists an image is PD and then also says “oh, by the way, it’s also PD in the US”?

Competence is required, especially when dealing with copyright law, and making absurd assumptions about what a particular source is saying about copyright does not display competence. It goes back to my earlier point about people who don’t know what they’re doing transferring images to Commons. If you don’t know better, you need to find a different area to edit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us why you changed the license to a specialized one in the above-mentioned files, instead of add to the existing one "This image is in the public domain in the United States. Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons."

This file is in the public domain, because According to the NHHC, Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description). This image is in the public domain in the United States. Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

It looks great. Like those people who require competence. — Ирука¹³ 12:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ignoring my points, I can see you are engaging in this discussion in good faith.

You are aware that the two images I linked earlier aren’t from NHHC, yes? Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments ran out - excuses began.
I'm surprised my family and pets weren't mentioned. — Ирука¹³ 13:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you have licensed the file correctly, there is no need for you to engage in these discussions and waste your time. And yet, already in the third discussion you produce tons of text.
You'd spend even less time if you weren't trying to determine the length of my femurs and the number of paternal aunts. — Ирука¹³ 14:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pushing the tendentious, bad-faith discussion tactics and we'll expand the scope of your blocked accounts. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning my blocking three times in two discussions and getting personal, threats - this is definitely good-faith behavior. — Ирука¹³ 13:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At first (4 weeks and a bunch of attacks on the personality) I
not an improvement and PD-because is perfectly valid, no matter how much you don't like it
but then
Special:Diff/1174554548/1175825487
Special:Diff/1175825556/1175825870
Special:Diff/1175825611/1175825843
Special:Diff/1175825696/1175825803
Well, now it's obvious that you love self-written templates as much as I (presumably) dislike them. — Ирука¹³ 05:45, 18 September 2023 (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.

File:ForbesPlateinPosvar.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting licenses. Image page has several free license tags, but description states "no rights granted for commercial use." Ixfd64 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not the only one; the same statement is visible in the copied upload log at c:File:AlumniHallatPitt.jpg (clicked on at random in the uploader's gallery; I haven't checked their other images). Normally I'd think this an F3 speedy with the wrong template stuck to it, but hey! The uploader is still active, and has edited in the last week. Please comment; your photos are great despite the humble disclaimer at the top of your userspace gallery, and I'd hate to lose any of them. —Cryptic 00:53, 14 September 2023 (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.

File:Ken Schenck.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional portrait, unlikely to be uploader's own work. Requires WP:VRT permission. ✗plicit 23:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2023 (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.