RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IFD below:

Wikipedia:Files for discussion - Wikipedia

Wikimedia project page for file discussions

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.

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

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

[edit]

I just found that File:Logo N.F.-Board.png exists on Wikicommons, uploaded by Jean Luc-Kit himself in 2020. So that means if we use that instead of this SVG version, we know there's not a copyright violation here. However, whether or not this complies with WP:NFCC§1:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

may be uncertain, and may need to be discussed. The reason that is so, is because of WP:NFC§Multiple restrictions:

For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder. If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity.

So should it be deleted in accordance with this, to avoid any uncertainty; or should it acquire the copyright of the version uploaded by Kit, and continue to be used here? wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason the .png file shouldn't be used in lieu of a lower res .svg Buffs (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vectorisation of a image that is, in most circumstances only available in PNG/JPG form, and of really low resolution. I ended up getting caught up in other things so I couldn't respond until 23:00; but if need be, this SVG could be edited to basically copy the PNG that Kit uploaded, and could, possibly, inherently be called a superior version to the PNG version of which Kit had uploaded. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 03:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is a derivative work. It cannot obtain new copyright without substantial changes. It is not labeled correctly. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using 2 non-free images, and thus violating WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. Either File:N.F.-Board logo.svg or File:NF-Board.png (the non-free version on en.Wikipedia) must therefore be removed and deleted to comply with NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this upload, it appears the images are mislabeled and are not non-free. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed the N.F.-Board to ask about the copyright status on Wikicommons. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: Did you get a response? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like they responded to my mail about the copyright status of the logo:

Vouliez-vous dire de télécharger votre logo sur Wikicommons sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0 ? Les termes de la licence sont au bas de cet e-mail.

Discussion sur Wikicommons à propos des fichiers : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_June_19#File:N.F.-Board_logo.svg

I then went on to paste the entire CC BY-SA 4.0 license into the email...

Drats. Worth a shot though, no? kxeon talk 19:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is no evidence as to when this file was initially published. If it was first published in 1989, then it's not PD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not first published in 1989. That’s the date of the book where I found it. The photo is dated 1911. It is a picture of a houseboat called Astoria built on the River Thames near Tagg’s Island for theatre impresario Fred Karno. The photo is 114 years old. Orwell'sElephant (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in the US is based on the date of publication, not the age of the photograph. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is published in 1911 of an event that took place in 1911. Orwell'sElephant (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that it was published in 1911? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the source information on the page to clarify. The photo comes from a local history archive and is one of many such archival photos included in Baker's 1989 book. The book verifies the photo's date and subject matter. The book itself is a historical survey of part of the Thames River. FWIW Baker was born 8 years after the photo was taken. The photo is of a documented event that occurred in 1911 (i.e. the construction of the boat shown), which is documented in context in Baker's book (among other events which took place on the Thames at that time). Orwell'sElephant (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1911 is when the work was created. Under copyright law, publication is different than creation. All we have is that this is a photograph by an anonymous author that was first published in 1989 in England. Unless you can show a different publication date, per the Hirtle chart, it is not PD in the US until 31 December 2047. That said, you can add a fair use template to the image if you can show that it qualifies under WP:NFCC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the reference to the 1989 book, as I think it confuses rather than enlightens the issue (to reiterate: it was included as citation to date the photo and attest to its description). The photo dates to 1911. If the original survives to the present it is likely found in the archive of one of the Surrey or Richmond borough local libraries referenced by Baker in the acknowledgments to his book. It is also reproduced elsewhere: e.g. Slashgear magazine), which can make no greater claim to copyright than Baker can. I will make enquiries of the local library system in due course but for now the providence of the image remains unknown, so I have marked it as such. Does someone eventually adjudicate this? Orwell'sElephant (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See above.

Orwell'sElephant (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

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

Just textual bookspines, could be considered PD. JayCubby 05:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gommeh 🎮 16:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art of Spanish release not proven contextually significant to the English version in question. Also, may be less distinctive to the other cover art already used. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Feel free to use the image at will" is probably not legally sound enough to warrant us marking this in the public domain. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is under the US threshold of originality. It should be considered a non-free file. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure about it as well - based on my understanding, this one's borderline under US TOO and certainly above the British TOO. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JohnHymers.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually above Japan's threshold of originality? Tagged with "Do not move to Commons" with a "Deleted on Commons" tag that links to a non-existent page, not even any deletion logs. SergioFLS (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons Under the principles described in c:COM:TOO Japan, a musical note isn't going to be copyrightable since it's used a means of communication. hinnk (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Commons per hinnk. a musical note (specifically 8th note) is a common musical design that certainly isn't copyrighted by a single company like Nintendo. Additionally TOO in Japan is very high and comparable to the United States. There's example of musical note image avaliable at Commons, such as c:Category:SVG musical note icons and c:Category:SVG musical notation, no company copyright any musical notations. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1. The subject died today and there is no evidence that obtaining free options were attempted or that they could exist (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch At the time of his death, there was no image of the subject on Wikimedia Commons. reason why this was uploaded with the deceased licensing tag until an image is available on Commons. Afro 📢Talk! 05:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean one could not ever be found. Anyone who has been to a match where Silva played and taken a photograph of him could upload a freely licenced image of him. Thus, still fails WP:NFCC#1 as an image could be created- and no effort has been made for this. "Commons doesn't have an image" isn't sufficient. So I support delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 28#File:Juan izquierdo en cndef.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 11#File:Nelsy Cruz.png. hinnk (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFCC1 states "no free equivalent is available, or could be created", so if there's no free files of a deceased available on commons or locally, a fair use file of them can be uploaded until someone licenses the photos they took with a free license. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still stand by my comment as there is no image of the subject on Wikimedia Commons. That's the reason why this was uploaded with the deceased licensing tag until an image is available on Commons. Afro 📢Talk! 22:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the precedent that there is apparently no possibility ever of a free image of Juan Izquierdo, who played for Uruguay's biggest club and whose final match was viewed by 60,000 people, there can't be a free image of someone who played in the Portuguese second division. It sounds rushed, but precedents are precedents. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, criterion 1: Pictures of people still alive, would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, mugshots would not be used for limited sentencing (while living). Absolutiva 01:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not being used for any identification reasons, but as a unique historical photograph. The publication of their mugshots and the publication of their identities was a historic, specific event that is discussed in the article. Any new free photo would not satisfy the context, because they would no longer be children, so it would not capture what this is used for. It is not replacable. The entire notability of this case is about children murdering children. Seeing this specific notorious photo greatly improves one's understanding of what the public saw and felt. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the most notorious crimes in British history, and the specific photo of the child perpetrators has been shared on countless news articles and documentaries. It truly is a historic photo and the page would be all the poorer without it. We're not exactly going to find and make photographs of two people with protected new identities, and whatever they look like would not match the effect of seeing two primary-aged children in a mugshot. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third time a user is uploading this image. As I've written before, this is not a "cover art for John Wayne", it's merely a screenshot from the video, used solely on one page of Lady Gaga's website, exactly because the song does not have a cover art. Should be deleted (once again...). Sricsi (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice of you to use "" to prevent this situation, and maybe you are violating WP:PERSONAL. Plus, her official website indicates it as a single, zero reason to be list as "song". Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which part of my remark was a "personal attack" per WP:PERSONAL? I am merely commenting on the uploaded image, which has been now uploaded/deleted several times, and is not a cover of an audio recording. Sricsi (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the official cover art for "Video Phone"—it's merely a screenshot from the music video, used only on a single page of Lady Gaga's website. Even if it were an actual single cover, it would still fail to meet WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination, plus, per WP:NFCC#8, its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same image has already been uploaded before by another user. This is not a cover art for a single, it's merely a screenshot from the video, used solely on one page of Lady Gaga's website, exactly because the song does not have a cover art. Should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The JPEG version (File:Take On Me cover.jpg) was deleted per FFD discussion. As I see, the PNG version was uploaded, but I'm unconvinced that it is needed and proven compliant with NFCC, especially #8 and #3a. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, per NFCC no. 8 and no. 3a - FlightTime (open channel) 15:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exceeds number of allowed non-free items and/or lacks contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used to illustrate a single sentence in Mathematics and art about Max Ernst making Lissajous curves. Lissajous curves can easily be explained with free media, and the fact that Max Ernst made them is readily understood without the use of non-free media. hinnk (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to find scattered illustrations relevant to mathematics and art from freely licensed sources (that is, artworks whose copyright was released by the artist under a free license), but I think it's more or less impossible to accurately depict the past century of the history of the topic (which is quite frankly most of the directly relevant art that has ever been made, including many whole genres of artworks) using only free images. The use of low-resolution non-free images seems very obviously to qualify as fair use under US copyright law. Whether they qualify for use in this particular article under Wikipedia policy is a matter somewhat unrelated to copyright law though; personally I hope they can be kept, because I don't think they are reasonably replaceable for this article, except by other non-free images.

As regards this specific image, no, some other image of a Lissajous curve is not an adequate replacement, and does not successfully illustrate the point being made in the article. Yes, this image is substantially helpful for readers. I don't think the artist (either Ernst or the unknown photographer) is going to suffer any harm whatsoever from having their work used in low resolution as part of a scholarly survey 80+ years later. YMMV.

(Aside: even other images which are currently tagged as freely licensed are not necessarily free from copyright, e.g. File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg claims to be CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 and the file description page indicates that the photographer has released copyright of the photograph per se for its use on Wikipedia. But there is no evidence that the sculptor was ever consulted, and she retains copyright of the sculpture which also affects derivative works such as this photograph. The image should probably be removed from Commons and uploaded to Wikipedia at low resolution and tagged as fair use in a few specific articles.)

(Aside #2: the same problem affects other art articles. As an example Abstract expressionism is exclusively illustrated by fair use images of paintings and supposedly "freely licensed" images of copyrighted sculptures which should probably also be tagged as fair use. We might be able to find a few actually free images of the topic, but I don't think it's possible to neutrally and meaningfully illustrate an article about a topic like abstract expressionism without relying predominantly on fair use images. This is probably a discussion that should be had somewhere other than an obscure page like Files for discussion. If you want to apply this kind of standard consistently, I recommend you make an RFC at the village pump asking to remove fair use images from all high-level survey articles about art topics, or the like.)

–jacobolus (t) 04:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more or less impossible to accurately depict the past century of the history of the topic…using only free images. You say this repeatedly, but you're rebutting a point nobody made. The standard I cited is WP:NFCC#8. If readers can't make it through (literally) one sentence about Ernst without an image showing it, then something's gone wrong.

You also seem to be getting off topic a lot. You're more than welcome to open discussions on the copyright status of File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg, image use in the Abstract expressionism article, or your proposed RFC at an appropriate venue, but please avoid derailing the conversation and stay on topic here. hinnk (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point, which is that this nomination doesn't seem consistent with prevailing use of fair use images in practice across the entire set of high-level art articles (as compared to articles about specific works or artists); in such articles images should usually sit alongside relatively brief specific discussion, as detailed analysis or criticism of each specific image would violate WP:WEIGHT and derail the article's narrative flow. I don't quite understand why you are singling out this particular article / these particular images, but if you want to change those widespread practices I don't think this is a good venue for such a conversation, since not very many Wikipedians are likely to participate here. I think you should instead open up a discussion somewhere such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts or even the village pump. If you don't want to change those widespread practices, then maybe you can explain what you think is special about the Mathematics and art article, different from other high-level art articles, as a reason to disallow the use of fair use images. –jacobolus (t) 08:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the use of the file in Mathematics and art is fully compliant with the Non-Free usage criteria, and the image is important in showing the close connection of mathematics and the practice of modern art, through the work of a major 20th century artist, Max Ernst.

The claim by nom that "Lissajous curves can easily be explained" with other media is disingenuous, as such media would not make the article's point that Ernst treated the figures as his art, created the figures mechanically, and went so far as to have that creation photographed, in this very image. Those points could in no way be made with other media, and would be far weaker if made solely in text, because an image – whether photograph or painting – has a power and immediacy that text, no matter how finely crafted, wholly lacks. In short, the image is itself important in the history of mathematics and art. I have extended the article, which already references the image in text and caption with reliable sources, to demonstrate the importance of the image and the technique. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the key point here is that the image is clearly necessary to Mathematics and art, the only place it is used. It is the only image in the 'Analysis of art history' section, and the only image to depict an artist at work using a mathematical technique. The image is discussed in detail in that section, and reliably cited; a whole paragraph (with nine sources) covers Max Ernst's work as depicted in the image. The article would, in a word, be seriously damaged by the removal of this historic photograph, which cannot be replaced by any other kind of image. The objection that other art history articles do not (or fail to) use such illustrations has nothing to do with the fair use criteria, which rightly focus on whether the image is used fairly and appropriately, with sufficient justification. This image certainly complies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from Mathematics and art was contested, use in The Human Condition (Magritte) isn't disputed. This image is used to illustrate a two-sentence passage in the Mathematics and art article which briefly describes La condition humaine but doesn't go into the type of analysis or commentary that would meet WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that including some illustrative examples of 20th century art very clearly meets the burden of "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". We could replace this specific image by a different one, but the plausible candidates are also non-free images. I don't think this article can be adequately illustrated if we limit ourselves to freely licensed images. This is a little abstract though. hinnk, if you could go locate a number of relevant freely licensed images it would be possible to have a more useful concrete discussion about whether a version of the article with fewer fair-use images and more freely licensed images successfully made the same point as the current version. –jacobolus (t) 04:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting off-topic again. Discussion of replaceability isn't relevant (that's WP:NFCC#1). Fortunately, the article already has over 60 free images already, including 20th- and 21st-century works.

I don't think this article can be adequately illustrated if we limit ourselves to freely licensed images. Again, you're rebutting a point nobody has made. Only two images covered briefly in the text have been nominated. A passing mention without analysis or commentary doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You only nominated 2 images, presumably as a first nibble, but essentially the same criticism also applies to File:Bathsheba Grossman geometric art.jpg, File:Hartmut Skerbisch.jpg, File:Objet mathematique by Man Ray.jpg, File:Print Gallery by M. C. Escher.jpg, and probably File:Icosahedron-spinoza.jpg (though it's not clear who the sculptor is). (And as I mentioned in your other nomination, the same criticism also applies to essentially every image currently used in the article Abstract expressionism, as well as a wide range of similar high-level overview articles about art from the past century.)

I think this article is already quite non-neutral insofar as it doesn't talk more about important copyrighted 20th century works; presumably that is at least somewhat influenced by the desire to showcase freely available images instead (in my opinion there are an over-abundance older out-of-copyright images some of which are a bit redundant and don't sufficiently justify their presence, and also an over-emphasis on relatively unimportant examples by unknown recent artists that happen to be freely licensed). I think it would be harmful to readers to remove the existing non-free images insofar as it would further skew the article away from neutral presentation of the topic. –jacobolus (t) 07:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The work by Magritte is specifically and substantially discussed in the text of Mathematics and art, and reliably cited there. It forms an essential part of the discussion of the use of a semiotic joke in Magritte's modern art. The discussion would be obscure in the extreme without the presence of the image of the artwork itself, as the semiotic joke is visual not textual, and we cannot assume that readers will arrive knowing what a visual semiotic joke is: the matter only becomes clear (and visually entertaining) with the image. Any attempt to explain such a thing without the use of an image is going to be weak and confusing to many readers; I pride myself on the clarity and quality of my text, but words are simply not a sufficient medium to convey the impact of art – if they were, artists could write rather than paint, as the paint would be wholly redundant. I note the discussion above in this thread; while it may be that other artworks could illustrate other points, this discussion of Magritte's pioneering work on logical paradoxes in art certainly could not. The assertion that the discussion in this article is "a passing mention" is both absurd and disingenuous, as the coverage is substantial and vital to the topic of the section. I have taken the opportunity to extend the discussion, with cited comparisons to earlier art and theory, as well as a brief quotation to indicate the work's significance in Illustrating mathematics. Scholars are in no doubt whatsoever about this famous painting's importance in the domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap, who has done much work within the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key point here is that this is the only image by Magritte, and it is chosen specifically for its visual paradox (also called a visual joke) with its intentional confusion of scene and frame in the 'Illustrating mathematics' section of the article. The painting ostensibly depicts a rural landscape scene through a window, framed by window and curtains; it is further framed by the legs of an artist's easel, as if the viewer is the artist viewing the scene in the process of painting it, making the rural landscape ambiguously something outside the window and fresh wet paint on the canvas inside the room (or dried paint on the actual painting). A whole paragraph of the article relies (intensely in this case) on the image, which clearly cannot be replaced by anything else. The discussion, which relates Magritte's work to that of Rembrandt, and the views of Leon Battista Alberti on the mathematics of perspective and of the art historian András Rényi on Magritte's subversion of the depiction/reality distinction, is reliably cited to three sources. In short, the removal of this image would seriously weaken the section, and the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: think Chiswick Chap has it about right: the educational value is conveying a complex concept via a relatively easy to grasp image. The image rational set's this out, and imo is "irreplaceable" in its direct connection with the mathematical concept, and its omission underserves readers. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap, and above, the painting represents a very important concept as depicted visually; the image clarifies in a valuable and understandable way...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This file was marked as fair use with URAA restored copyright. But because this image was published in 1929 and URAA copyright expired, that means that it’s now in US PD and can be moved to Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons per nom ApexParagon (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem right. The author died in 1946. This drawing was still copyrighted in Canada in 1996; it didn't lose its copyright protection until 1947 1997 (the rule is the year of the creator's death + 50, not just 50 years). {{PD-URAA}} requires it to be PD by 1996. The current licensing appears to be correct. ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"1947" or 1997? George Ho (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that's what I get for rewriting my comment several times. Fixed, thanks! ✗plicit 00:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In file there is date of publication 1929, which means copyright expired. 2A00:F41:2C25:2FD9:F4D7:D975:F618:470F (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text is PD, descriptions are ineligible, and the icons are simple. Not sure this is above TOO JayCubby 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the quote by Patrick Stewart come from? ✗plicit 00:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still a derivative work if the text is so small you can't actually read the quote? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could blur the offending quote. Then it would definitely be PS JayCubby 15:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg is kept. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Superceded. Cloudbound (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of images of Ludwig on Wikicommons, so this one is unnecessary. Sahaib (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fan content that isn't necessary to understand the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's infobox already has the official album cover, so it may violate WP:NFCC#3a. Leehsiao (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image showing side portion of Mary Poppin books still eligible for copyright? One editor thought so a few years back. Nonetheless, I'm still uncertain due to drawings of the titular character in two of the books, so I recently changed back the copyright status and am bringing this here. Should be kept as unfree if no objections, IMO. George Ho (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is July 8 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 8 – (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 8===" 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.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4