Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 2

December 2

File:The Gayooms in 1970.jpg

Unknown date of publication, impossible to count 50 years. +WP:URAA — Ирука¹³ 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infact it is very much possible that the picture is taken in 1970, and that's 54 years ago. That's because of the twins pictured (Dunya and Yumna born March 1970) are likely not even 1 years old when the picture was taken. From 2024, 50 years is 1974. If that is so and if the picture was taken in 1974 or after, the twins would be over 4 years old. I don't think any 4 year olds looks like 6-8 month old babies. Also a other fact that if it was taken in 1971, it's possible that there would be Gayoom's son in the picture, who was born in 1971. So it is very much possible to say the picture was taken in 1970. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MAL MALDIVE, you're correct that the image can be obviously dated by the age of the people in it, but that's not what we're concerned with. What's important is the date of the first publication of that image. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it has been published in 1970, it would have been copyrighted in the Maldives in 1996 and is therefore still copyrighted in the United States due to restoration by the URAA. Therefore if this does not turn out to have been first published in the US and without a copyright notice, I don't see how this photo can be kept. Felix QW (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simpsonsride1.jpg

This image contains copyrighted characters. It is not free. Given the metadata, it should be deleted; and a replacement taken from Commons. — Ирука¹³ 20:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JFKRocket.JPG

Does Freedom of Panorama apply here? I asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions at the section, "Is this a sculpture or a rocket on a stand?" Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batman superman.PNG

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

Criterion 9, because the file is used in non-article pages, including disambiguation pages, and non-article namespaces either other than or in addition to articles and article namespaces. — Ирука¹³ 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is being used in a WP:Set index article of these two characters as a visual means and provides the contextual significance of the subjects. It is not an actual DAB page, as explained at WP:SETNOTDAB, and that ought to fall in line with the exceptions of the criteria. I see no reason to warrant a deletion. It was also just re-uploaded with a higher-quality version before the nom erroneously removed it from the SIA Batman and Superman where it is most relevant, which the nom did not really provide any proper explanation for in their odd edit summary. This nomination is over a misunderstanding of a technicality and lacks sufficient rationale or merit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, you're correct. That image being in this article doesn't violate any rules that I know of.

..I brought the community's attention to a situation that I think violates NFCC - "my job here is done". — Ирука¹³ 01:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs to be explicitly stated that SIAs are an exception because they are not DABs (which it seems is necessary), then that is something that ought to be handled at the Criterion page, not by trying to make an example out of one lone file. Since this file does not violate any rules, there is no reason it ought to be deleted or discussed in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trailblazer101's rationale, the reader's understanding of the subjects is increased from the file's existence, and also, set index considerations hold true. Barnt Toust 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~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 16:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It provides a significant understanding by showcasing who both of these characters are directly in the SIA without having our readers go to another article to figure that out. There is nothing wrong with how this image is being used in this SIA. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]