[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:IFD)
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 10 10
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 4 4
RfD 0 0 0 30 30
AfD 0 0 0 10 10

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here

edit
  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2024 November 26}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2024 November 26}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 November 26}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1931, not 1925.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Instructions for discussion participation

edit

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:

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

edit

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

Old discussions

edit
Shortcut

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

November 17

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

[edit]

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rublamb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука13 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. The use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo which has not been found elsewhere for this defunct group. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the article is barely enough to use {{External media}}. Once again - what prevents you (not you specifically, but any person) from taking your own photo of this object? And again, why, despite MOS:LEAD / MOS:LEADIMAGE / MOS:SECTIONLOC, is the image placed in the infobox, and not in the section in which it is described?
Are you sure you tried? — Ирука13 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the link you provided for the org is from 2013 is that the Order went defunct in 2014. There is no longer a national office to call for a photo. But I think you are missing the point. The photo was taken by a federal employee in their capacity at the federal institution (the national museum). Copyright is, therefore, not an issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the reason.
The community is 100 years old. All of its members and their families are dead. All - all! - of the merchandise is destroyed or in Fort Knox. Am I right in understanding why you can't take a photo of it? — Ирука13 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the rationale stated by Rublamb. Responding to Iruka13's (Ирука's) point, I hope that someone visiting the museum would indeed take a clearer picture, but for now, this image will suffice. As to placement, the F&S Project prefers to use a society's crest as the organizational identifier in the top left infobox, but when this is unavailable or of significantly (~too) low resolution, we opt for images of the society's pin or key. If both are available, we then place the pin or key image against the parameter | member badge = [badge].PNG, also in the infobox, or as a thumbnail graphic in the Symbols section of the body text. Both items help identify the society and its members, and in all cases we opt for PD images where we can, or reduced-size fair use images which do not affect commercial viability. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The participant confirmed that it is possible to take a free photo. — Ирука13 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.gif

[edit]

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: Keep This nomination seems unintelligible to me too - I have no idea what the nomination is asking for * Pppery * it has begun... 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Debbiesw (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Except that a very similar image, but with thinner lines, is on the official website of the cathedral, I have not found any other information about it. — Ирука13 09:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not understand this deletion proposal. On what basis is the nominator proposing deletion? That they cannot confirm that it is sufficiently old to be tagged as being "first published outside the United States [..] before 1978"? While, perhaps, the licence tag could be improved, there is ample evidence that the image is sufficiently old as to be out of copyright. Including this record (which includes this representation of the same seal) reputedly dating to "c.1870". Or this post about a modern company that "reworked" the logo/seal which states that the "Capitular Seal [is] a signifying marque of Christ Church dating from the 12th Century". Whether the version on Wikipedia dates from the 19th century or the 12th century, it is not copyrighted or copyrightable. Perhaps {{PD-old-assumed}} would be a better tag. But I do not see any reason for deletion (nor, from what I can tell, has the nominator offered one...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People see what they want to see... please scroll all the way to the top of the page and read what is written there in large print.
Now. We have a seal - a 3D object from the 12th century. And we have sketches from the 1870s. And there is a restoration in the form of a drawing on paper from the end of the twentieth, or already the 21st century? The latter is in full swing of copyright. — Ирука13 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. But I (still) don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean "people see what they want to see". What people? Me? What do I want to see? And what page should I "scroll all the way to the top" of? And what will I see there?
As per my note above, and this page in a related book, the seal of Christ Church Cathedral dates to at least 1230. With the version represented in the image under discussion dating from a "reworking of the design" from 1660.
Even if the representation uploaded to Wikipedia was, as you say, "a drawing [of the 13th or 17th century seal] on paper from the end of the twentieth or 21st century" it wouldn't become copyrighted. Or copyrightable. In order for the recent representation (the "drawing on paper") to be copyrighted or copyrightable, that derivative work would have to be substantially changed from the original work. Which isn't the case. The "drawing" is an unaltered representation of a work dating from (at least) the 17th century. It isn't copyrightable.
My recommendation remains a "keep". Otherwise the image (or a version of it) could also be moved to Commons. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can compare 2D and 3D objects, then everything is exactly as you say. — Ирука13 20:42, 24 November 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.

November 16

File:VPRO1970's.PNG

[edit]

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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VPRO1970's.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ischa3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The logo should either be considered simple or removed for non-compliance with WP:NFCC#8. — Ирука13 00:32, 16 November 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.

November 15

File:Indian Bank logo.svg

[edit]

File:Indian Bank logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VNC200 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A low-quality fake (WP:HOAX) that is not capable of replacing the original image for encyclopedic purposes (WP:NFCC# 4, 5, 8). — Ирука13 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change your own file to proper SVG file, and upload it in the old file. It would be better. VNC200 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I inform the community of a conflict of interest regarding this image between me and the administrator Ymblanter. — Ирука13 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

edit

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

November 19

edit

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

edit
File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GiankM. M (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Launchballer 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La sopera, María Izquierdo, 1929.jpg

edit
File:La sopera, María Izquierdo, 1929.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DogeGamer2015MZT (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The painting was published in 1929 and is not in the public domain in the United States. It cannot be used as non-free under 8 paragraph WP:NFCC. — Ирука13 08:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting was published before 1930 so it is public domain in the United States DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DogeGamer2015MZT: I think you've made an off-by-one error. WP:PD says that In the US, any work published before January 1, 1929, anywhere in the world is in the public domain. On the bright side, it'll enter the public domain in just six weeks. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not worth deleting for only one month DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmad Madaani.jpg

edit
File:Ahmad Madaani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GTVM92 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since neither the author nor the date of original publication is known, it is not possible to determine the licensing status of the photograph in the United States or Iran. — Ирука13 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png

edit
File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phibetawiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think it's under the threshold of originality for maps, making it public-domain. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG

edit
File:Torun unesco poland.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geniu~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука13 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

edit
File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jax MN (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.svg

edit
File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Conor M98 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source, looks significantly different from File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.png which does have a source (see the edges of the colored letters), contains a large chunk of raster graphics, possibly previously deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July_22#File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.svg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

edit

November 20

edit

File:Franciszek Ksawery Branicki (1730-1819) 1.jpg

edit
File:Franciszek Ksawery Branicki (1730-1819) 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Emax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:Jan Chrzciciel Lampi - Franciszek Ksawery Branicki with his sons, Aleksander and Władysław - MP 4418 MNW - National Museum in Warsaw.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 00:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sosumi.mp3

edit
File:Sosumi.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jibblesnark86 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a complete edition of the Sosumi sound. It's not a sample of Sosumi. It's the entire Sosumi sound file. Sosumi originated as a sample of another song is true, but is irrelevant. The Sosumi sound is its own thing, with its own name, and Wikipedia article Sosumi, and news coverage. GreenC 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll fix it right away. In the meantime, I put it as a "sample" because it was listed as a sample of a xylophone. Although, I completely understand what you're saying, so what should I label it as instead? Please let me know ASAP. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know how to label an Apple OS sound file, maybe just that? How the sound file was composed or obtained is sort of secondary. In any case, it is not Fair Use to use the entire work, to be Fair Use would require a "sample of a sample", but it's so short, it is not practical. Possibly there is a replica somewhere that is machine generated and thus not copyrightable? -- GreenC 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I labeled it as "trademark", will that work? If not, please tell me because I may have to delete it myself before someone else does. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jibblesnark86. Suggest we ask WP:Media copyright questions, they are knowledgeable on obscure copyright issues. I opened a question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Sosumi_sound_file. Let's follow up there, and come back here, if there is consensus to delete. -- GreenC 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there is some good news soon, because I really don't wanna get in trouble or something! Thank you for assisting! Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody responded yet. I usually get help there. -- GreenC 01:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube clip of the whole Sosumi sound effect sounds clearer than the mp3 version. Has the mp3 format downgraded the quality of the sound effect in any way? George Ho (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stereo MCs - Connected excerpt.ogg

edit
File:Stereo MCs - Connected excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Its contextual significance to the parent album and the whole song questionable. Default to deletion if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely excerpt.ogg

edit
File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Its contextual significance to the whole song and the singer who performed the content heard in the file questionable. Default to deletion if no one objects. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely.jpg

edit
File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Memphisto (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There's already a cover art (for the same recording but under a different format). Also, its contextual significance to the song questionable. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morgan Schaller.jpg

edit
File:Morgan Schaller.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FreeBeerAndBrats (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo is copyrighted by Morgan Schaller. There is no confirmation that he published the photo under this license. — Ирука13 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What steps need to be taken to resolve this? FreeBeerAndBrats (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg

edit
File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The C of E (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946" — Ирука13 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD where? — Ирука13 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the second bulletpoint in the tag. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fiorenzuola 1992-93.jpg

edit
File:Fiorenzuola 1992-93.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davide King (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo was taken in 1992-93, meaning it did not enter the public domain in Italy before 1996, and therefore still under copyright in the United States. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all of the user’s other uploads were published in Italy after 1976 and therefore still under copyright in the United States. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. My bad. I do not usually upload pictures and when I did those I thought they would have been fine as long as I properly attributed, and since I used only once or for one page, I thought that they fell under fair use. Davide King (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Primitives - Crash excerpt.ogg

edit
File:Primitives - Crash excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the band who performed the content heard in the file questionable. Critical commentary inadequate to justify usage. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La's - There She Goes excerpt.ogg

edit
File:La's - There She Goes excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File's contextual significance to the band who performed the content heard in the file questionable. Critical commentary inadequate to justify usage. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susan Smith (SC convict).png

edit
File:Susan Smith (SC convict).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cotton2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Person still alive. EF5 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is generally an exception for people who have life in prison, as the same reasons for dead people apply - they are completely inaccessible to the public so it is impossible for a free image to be taken. See Lucy Letby for example. So keep, I suppose (she does have a theoretical chance of parole but given how high profile this case was... doubtful. But maybe weak keep given that) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

edit

File:Backboard shattering.jpeg

edit
File:Backboard shattering.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Left guide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural filing to seek wider community input to settle disagreement over the validity of speedy deletion.

File:ChalavYisrael-OUD.jpg

edit
File:ChalavYisrael-OUD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JediMasterMacaroni (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photograph is of such poor quality that for encyclopedic purposes it can only appear in an article on "how not to take photographs". / There is no license for the photo of the - presumably - three-dimensional object. — Ирука13 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

edit

File:CAS Cambridge.jpg

edit
File:CAS Cambridge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this logo is simple. — Ирука13 06:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. I don't think this meets the threshold of originality as it's a naturally occurring shape (the continent of Africa) rendered in two color tones. But I'll defer to the community. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide examples of such images. — Ирука13 06:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To what images are you referring? Chetsford (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely meets threshold of originality, as it is not just a simple shape, nor a simple wordmark (lettering in a font, perhaps with some basic geometrical hooey around or behind or through it). However, that doesn't magically make it immune to all fair-use rationales, it just doesn't qualify as PD for non-originality/simplicity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hassan Allahyari in podcast.png

edit
File:Hassan Allahyari in podcast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hujjat al-Umari (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably a screenshot from one of the podcasts, as indirectly evidenced by the lack of metadata and the uploading of non-free images by the participant under the guise of free ones. — Ирука13 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the filename specifically says that's what it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TimRoseAmericanSon2002FrontCover.jpg

edit
File:TimRoseAmericanSon2002FrontCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SMcCandlish (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS). — Ирука13 09:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case, since the article on the artist is also the article on the album until such time as it has its own article (and it may be notable enough for one; I'm not just not one to devote much editing time to pop-culture material these days). See the very defailed fair-use rationale at the file page now, updated yesterday.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nematollah Aghasi And Andranik Madadian.jpg

edit
File:Nematollah Aghasi And Andranik Madadian.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hossein.income (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Author and date of publication unknown. License status cannot be confirmed. — Ирука13 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

edit

File:MachineReadableIndianPassportCover.JPG

edit
File:MachineReadableIndianPassportCover.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nick88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:MachineReadableIndianPassportInsideFront.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nick88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MachineReadableIndianPassportPage2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nick88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MachineReadableIndianPassportLastPage.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nick88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, low quality photos of an Indian passport. High quality alternatives available at c:Category:Passports of India. ✗plicit 04:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png

edit
File:Chambéry Airport logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Antonbabich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The complex logo (?) is loaded over the simple one without changing the license. Not to mention that in the source it is now .svg. — Ирука13 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EleanorDaley.jpg

edit
File:EleanorDaley.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klio0701 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Public-domain alternative (File:President John F. Kennedy Meets with Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago and Daley's Family (1).jpg) exists. I have substituted this photo's previous use with it. SecretName101 (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Man with the Golden Gun, wraparound cover.jpeg

edit
File:The Man with the Golden Gun, wraparound cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SchroCat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:FREER — Ирука13 12:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What a waste of time. FREER does not play any part in this farce. We have replaced one non-free image with another non-free image, not one iota of which comes under FREER. (Just for clarification, WP:FREER concerns itself with where "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent". Where one non-free replaces another non-free, FREER plays no part, whether in deleting the image from an article (along with other changes), or with a deletion discussion where there is no non-free equivalent). When this was reverted from the article space, it was done under the rational of CSD F7. Looking at WP:F7, I am perplexed as to what part of this rationale is relevant here, given: 1. the image is not from an agency; 2. it is not replaceable by a free image; and 3. there is no invalid fair-use claim. The rationale given for this deletion is a false and—given the context—a disruptive one. This discussion should be archived and the image should be allowed to remain on WP as a non-free image.
    Although both images (the old and the new) are non-free, the new image shows the whole cover, which actually manages to show the whole book title, not less than half of it, plus aspects of the illustrations that are referred to in the text - aspects that look ridiculous without actually showing the whole cover.
    I have asked user:Iruka13 why they think FREER plays a part in this, but they firstly refused to do so and since have been unable or unwilling to offer up an explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blindingly obvious keep. See Template:Non-free book cover: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question … qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States". I can't say I like the cover much, but its use here ticks every box for admissibility under Wikipedia's rules. Tim riley talk 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although in the case of most books just the obverse would suffice, the dust cover of The Man with the Golden Gun is implicitly intended to be taken as a single work, with the obverse and reverse both containing the same information (i.e., title, gun) as part of an integral whole. Consequently, this version of the dust cover is the more representational. As for WP:FREER, it's absolutely spurious. The first sentence of that paragraph is "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." The Man with the Golden Gun was published in 1965, so even if the cover art were anonymous it would not enter the public domain in Britain in 2036; due to the URAA, there are similar implications for the United States. Richard Chopping, the artist, died in 2008, which means the cover art remains in copyright until 2079. There are no "free" alternatives available or potentially available.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? — Ирука13 15:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13, is there any chance you could explain yourself a little more clearly? The lack of clear communication is not helping. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I can explain. Your (three) behavior. You didn't read the paragraph I refer to to the end. — Ирука13 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisco, I think these comments are aimed at you. If you can understand them, can you explain to the rest of us, as Iruka13 had declined to clarify what they are supposed to mean. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the paragraph beginning "Another consideration for "no free equivalent" are "freer" versions of non-free media," you are clearly not understanding the content - and in fact I already argued against the possibility of the half-cover being used, if that is what you intend. The example provided speaks to the possibility of a dual copyright, wherein an item is copyrighted and an image of it is also copyrighted. You could feasibly have a point that one could purchase a first edition and scan the cover, thereby removing any possibility of the three-dimensional aspect incurring a new copyright (as alluded to below), but that does not remove the fact that any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to do a bit more explaining. Keep in mind that this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Iruka13, but I do not understand what you mean. What paragraph? What is the link to the image supposed to demonstrate or explain? - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't look at the nickname. Wasn't replying to you. — Ирука13 16:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13, Is there any chance you can communicate more clearly then. To whom were you speaking (it would possibly help if you pinged them) and what were you trying to say - they will possibly be as mystified as I am by your method of communication. Explaining more fully may help end this constant back and forth and let people focus on your perceived issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. These people are distracted by you. You removed a template that you shouldn't have removed. But now these people will learn something. In 7 days. — Ирука13 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can’t be bothered to explain why you have posted a deletion based on a false rationale, then this is going to end (rightly) with it being closed with the image retained. (The reason I removed the notice was because it's so obviously a false rationale, one I initially thought was just someone being disruptive: I am still not convinced that’s not the case, given a. the rationale is patently false, as several people have explained to you and b. you are being evasive and obstructive in not providing a proper explanation.) - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Iruka does when his images are falsely set for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 15#File:Bartaman logo 2023.png.
What SchroCat does when his images are falsely set for deletion: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑.
The people above have already tried to explain it to you three times. Judging by your reaction, they have failed. What are my chances? — Ирука13 11:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? People are trying to explain to you where you are going wrong on this. Others—including me—have asked you to explain what you are on about, but you have declined several times to write a coherent response explaining why uploading a non-free book cover to replace a non-free book cover is wrong in your opinion. I am still awaiting a proper description in understandable English (and not just a link to a picture) which explains your position on this. This obfuscation and obstruction is disruptive for other users, and you need to address it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The full cover is one image with the title of the book extending from rear to front. It would not adequately illustrate the article to use half (or less) of the image. The snake's skull shown on the rear cover refers to an important plot point in the novel, so it actually provides commentary. In any case, this image follows the non-free image rules and, as others note above, no free or "freer" image is available, so WP:FREER does not apply here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per the very good arguments above. CassiantoTalk 17:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is wasting editors' time when someone whose fragmentary English is unintelligible seeks to engage En.Wiki editors in frivolous arguments. Tim riley talk 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been made aware of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Problems with obstructive and uncommunicative editor. I am not sure if this is what the filer envisaged, but the issue I see with this image is that the panoramic angle at which the dust cover has been photographed goes beyond the mere two-dimensional reproduction intended by {{PD-Art}}. Therefore, there could arguably be a photographic copyright at play, which would indeed violate WP:FREER. A flat photo of the dust jacket would serve the same purpose, without this potential additional layer of copyright concern. Felix QW (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing some clarity into the discussion (although I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained by the filer earlier). As Nikkimaria pointed out above, this is a "this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law", so I'm unconvinced this needs to be considered long. This is also in line with Chris Woodrich's comment that "any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use". - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Felix's point is that, if we were to use an image like Fandom's, the terms of FREER would be better satisfied as there would be no possibility of the 3D positioning creating its own copyright. As I mentioned above, the three-dimensional aspect could incur a new copyright (as alluded to below), which is the concern. Personally, I prefer flat views just in terms of bang for one's buck, but I know some book articles have been illustrated with 3D views on the past – generally without hullaballoo.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely prefer using the Fandom image, as it serves just as well and resolves any lingering doubts anyone might have regarding photographer's copyright. Felix QW (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no sweat of the brow that would provide any basis for secondary copyright, but I've added a new version to bring this to an end. Much of this could have been avoided if Iruka13 acted in a slightly more professional manner and discussed things with people rather than refuse to explain. (By contrast, it's taken no time at all to sort once Felix QW and Crisco explained, which is something Iruka13 needs to take on board. Being obstructive when several people ask a straightforward question is not constructive; I can see why several other local Wikis and Commons have had enough of them.) - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

edit

File:H3 Podcast logo.jpg

edit
File:H3 Podcast logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staticshakedown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A simple logo was uploaded over the complex non-free logo. The license was changed to free. The non-free image should be hidden. — Ирука13 06:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg

edit
File:Edmond de Goeyse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Isaidnoway (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image of unknown origin (WP:NFCC#4). — Ирука13 08:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allensworth10.jpg

edit
File:Allensworth10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

On the one hand, the image has an unknown publication date; and the creation date is the 1910s. On the other hand, this photo is part of the work of the Californian government, which is PD... — Ирука13 17:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Mamdapur Conservation Reserve R3.jpg

edit
File:Map of Mamdapur Conservation Reserve R3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ccmarathe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The map was released in 1970 and is still under copyright protection. — Ирука13 17:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

edit

File:Mohsen-Yeganeh-Behet-Ghol-Midam.mp3

edit
File:Mohsen-Yeganeh-Behet-Ghol-Midam.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charkhin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally F9-tagged, but it looked like fair use, so I've gone ahead and added that rationale. The mp3 is malformed, though, so I can't get it down to proper size. Without it being shortened down to an acceptable length, the fair use rationale is invalid. So hopefully someone with more audio wiz skills than me can take care of that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png

edit
File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheInfoGiver827 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free: I think the original (04:12, 13 October 2024) upload does not meet the threshold of originality and should be restored and marked as such. The text on the webpage was very brief (see "words and short phrases" at :c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States § Threshold of originality) and the logos are already on Commons. A complicating issue is that the original file was repeatedly overwritten by more complex files, which may actually meet the threshold of originality. These overwrites should not have happened, as the original state of the webpage was the intent of the screenshot (described in the filename). I think the original upload should be restored and marked as free. This discussion was moved from deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 21 § File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png, pinging Aafi, Cryptic, Alalch E., Robert McClenon, Stifle, Jclemens, Hobit as involved in previous discussion). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

edit
File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note/suggestion - If it was to be kept, it should be taken out the infobox and an appropriate caption listed which explains or uses a quote from critical commentary which relates to the portion of the song used. Additionally, the sample page needs a better description that n/a against the WP:NFCC criteria.
>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:V. Armbruster - Rochdale Hornets.jpg

edit
File:V. Armbruster - Rochdale Hornets.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DynamoDegsy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP #1. I have added the alternative free image to the Vic Armbruster article. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of Truth or Dare.jpg

edit
File:Screenshot of Truth or Dare.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dxneo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3b as the image is high quality, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not increase the readers understanding of the topic. The scene in the image is adequately described in words, the picture does not add to this. Aside from this, the scene in the image is not subject to critical commentary or evaluation, or response from reliable sources. Its omission does not damage the subject content - images while advisable where possible, should not be taken for granted and assume that they fall under fair use (when they are from copyrighted material - music videos are non-free media) where their use cannot be demonstrated to be paramount to user understanding of the content being discussed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have disagreed with you asked me to take it down, but after your long message on my talk, I can see where this is coming from and it's okay, I understand. The image is not high quality and I'm not against taking it down. Thank you for looking into this. dxneo (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with our prior interactions. Please see WP:NFCC. Music videos are copyright media, it is illegal to share content from there. It is only classified as fair use if we can demonstrate that what is depicted in the screenshot cannot be adequately explained in words e.g. because its highly stylised or graphic, and/or its been subject to critical commentary from reliable sources. I spend a lot of time nominating media which is copyrighted - its not personal. This is only a discussion. Others might come along and determine that the content should stay. Administrators decide based on the arguments made. Its not a done deal yet :) >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your hard work and keeping the house clean. Looking forward to working with you in the future. You the best. dxneo (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – merely shows a singer in a music video; doesn't improve the understanding of (what) the song and the music video (are about). Also contextually significant to neither (sub?)topic. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mogadishu in 2017.jpg

edit
File:Mogadishu in 2017.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ayanl3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image authorship discrepancy. The stated author is MrMidnimo (talk · contribs) but the uploader is Ayanl3 (talk · contribs). Clarification is needed here, as this is vague and ambiguous. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 26[reply]

edit

Today is November 26 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 26 – This page doesn't exist yet, please create it.

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 "===November 26===" 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=1246761458"