Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

File:Temporal Closeness Attack.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formula, easily replicated (which, I believe, is the reason why it's not being used) using <math>. Primefac (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2016 (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:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Wikipedia's servers are based in the United States, which allows this file to be hosted here. It is considered free enough for {{FoP-USonly}}, but not for transferring to Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is uploaded as non-free due to France's freedom of panorama rules, but it is also tagged with {{FOP-USonly}}, which seems to imply it can be treated as freely licensed on English Wikipedia. If the latter is correct, then it's not clear why a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license as needed and the file cannot simply be treated as {{PD-USonly}} or "FoP-USonly". If the file needs to be non-free, then it's current use fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is no sourced discussion within the article that requires the reader see this particular image and the building is be more than sufficiently referred to using text only as required by WP:NFCC#1. So, I suggest keep if converting to "PD-USonly" or "FoPUSonly" if possible, but delete if not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: The image on FRwiki fr:Fichier:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg taken by fr:User:Chris93 is photographer-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU 1.2, but because France doesn't have FOP it's treated as non-free. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the way the file is currently being used does not, in my opinion, satisfy WP:NFCC#8. What content in the section SNCF#Headquarters requires the reader see this particular image and how would removing this image be detrimental to that understanding? Non-free use requires that all 10 non-free content criteria be satisfied, not just WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Should I add more info to SNCF#Headquarters about the properties of the building itself? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that this image needs to be in the article? How does it significantly improve the reader's understanding of what is written about the SNCF or this particular building to such a degree that removing it would be detrimental to that understanding? I realize that this may be subjective to some degree, but non-free use for decorative purposes is really not allowed. Simply adding content the properties of the building itself might not be enough; for example, if I add that the building is white and brown with lots of windows, and has 7 stories, then the reader still does not really need see the photo per WP:NFCC#1 even if the content I've added is supported by a reliable source. Is there something about this particular image that has been discussed in reliable sources? Is there something "unique" or "different" about the building's exterior that has been discussed in reliable sources? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps that content can be added to the article to strengthen the contextual connection between article content and image. At first glance, the building in the photo looks like a typical building. Simply wanting to the reader to see what it looks like might be OK for a freely licensed image like File:SNCFHQParis.JPG, but a much stronger justification is needed for non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: When you write an article about a company or organization it is often necessary to include an image of the corporate headquarters/head office/administrative office where it is based. Such buildings are often written about in reliable sources, as are occasions when the headquarters move. Major French publications have written about the recent SNCF HQ move to Saint-Denis. Readers will expect to see this image in the article. This is not just decoration, but illustration of SNCF the organization. This is why the French Wikipedia explicitly allows images of buildings.

I reviewed File:SNCFHQParis.JPG. In fact it is also "unfree" (AFAIK) because the French don't have FOP! In terms of what the photographer did, SNCFHQParis.JPG is licensed under Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License/GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 while fr:Fichier:Siège SNCF Saint-Denis.jpg is licensed photographer-wise Creative Commons 3.0 Unported/licence de documentation libre GNU, version 1.2. In other words both photographers gave free licenses, and both images are (AFAIK) unfree only because the French don't have FOP. In other words both images are licensed similarly.

However if both images are not original-looking buildings, then AFAIK they might qualify as being free under French FOP laws due to lack of creativity. If the buildings are "unique" or "different" then the architect has copyright over the images, and if they are not, then the architect does not have such a copyright.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about French Wikipedia, but when it comes to non-free use on English Wikipedia what matters is WP:NFCC, not what they do on other language Wikipedias. The reasons you're giving for wanting to use this file seem fine for an image being used in the main infobox of an article, but that is not how this file is being used, is it? It's being used much later in a subsection of the article where non-free use typically tends to be much harder to justify. Moreover, it could be argued that some Wikipedia readers expect to see lots of images in articles, but that is not always necessarily a proper justification for non-free use. The other file I mentioned above may be subject to the same FoP rules, but it does not have a non-free use rationale and is not licensed as non-free; this one, however, does have a non-free use rationale and is licensed as {{Non-free architectural work}}. Why that is the case is not clear (at least to me), which is what I asked about for clarification at the very beginning of my OP. Anyway, I've posted a {{Please see}} at WT:NFCC just to see if others who typically work with non-free content can help clarify this either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's licensed as "Non-free architectural work" because the non-FOP copyright stems from the building's architect (not from the company which owns/leases the building - in other words SNCF doesn't own the copyright - it's the architect). The copyright stems from the building being a work of art. See Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France which states that the architect's copyright only applies to buildings with an artistic character.

The non-free uses for logos do require that they be presented at the top of the article, but I had not heard that this is the case for non-free buildings in countries which don't have FOP. There are cases where sculptures/murals are discussed as part of a larger topic (say a museum, a neighborhood, a larger building) and our non-free image guidelines AFAIK don't require these images to be at the beginning of the article.

I bring up the situation on other Wikis because the editor base needs take into consideration country-specific situations such as what happens in France. After all they understand the legal situation in their country and how that could impact the encyclopedic value of their articles which is why they made specific templates for non-free buildings. ENWiki is of course a separate project, and of course NFCC is important, but the editors on ENwiki need to consider how to the reality in France fits into our FOP guidelines.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think images that are non-FOP in France but are otherwise freely licensed should qualify for Template:FoP-USonly - i can ask the Commons and/or FRwiki users if you like. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (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:Selfharm and violence in Tajikistan for both sexes.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely nonfree. While source data is probably PD, the presentation of it is not, and source site clearly claims copyright. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:42, 5 October 2016 (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:Dy wiki.jpg

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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have OTRS permission attached Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemeah,

What is OTRS permission?

I work for Mr Donnie Yen and have his permission to upload these files. Let me know how to obtain the permission.

Thanks.

Brazilian Tiger (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marked F11 as it should have been originally. Instructions for OTRS permission are included in the template and on your talk page Brazilian Tiger. --Majora (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (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:DY Training.jpeg

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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No OTRS permission attached. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marked F11 as it should have been originally. Instructions for OTRS permission are included in the template and on your talk page Brazilian Tiger. --Majora (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (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 Amazing Athiest Image.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fair-use file. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 23:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file could be used in another The Amazing Athiest page if it was created. Lord Akira otafuku ^{Lord Akira otafuku Talk} 13:16, 5 October 2016 (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:Si Te Vas (Versión Reggaeton).png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free CD single cover image being used as a an alternate cover for Si Te Vas (Paulina Rubio song). This image is substantially similar to the main cover (File:Si Te Vas - Paulina Rubio.png) so its use is contrary to WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2016 (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.