The result of the discussion was: remove from Norsefire. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-free cover art being used in Norsefire and V for Vendetta. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but I don't think the usage in "Norsefire" meets WP:NFCC#8 according to WP:NFC#cite-note 2. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion of the comic "Warrior" in the movie's article, but nothing in "Norsefire" requires a non-free image. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This file is a clear WP:NFCC#1/ WP:NFC#UUI violation since the subject is still alive. However, rather than tagging it for speedy deletion, I am bringing it here for discussion due to what is listed as its source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Виталий_Стариков,_Анна_Шатилова,_Евгений_Кочергин.JPG . This is a page on the Russian Wikipedia. On that page, it looks like this file has some sort of {{ GFDL}} free-release license. Can that be verifiably transferred over here? Steel1943 ( talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: remove from Pierrot. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-free cover art being used in Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song) and Pierrot#Films, television, and anime. File has a non-free usage rationale for each usage but only its usage in the stand-alone article about the song "Ashes to Ashes" seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8. Usage in "Pierrot" seems decorative and I don't think it is needed. There are 30 other images being used in the article depicting what a "Pierrot" looks like and so a non-free image is not needed for that. Bowie is mentioned several times in the article, but not sure what is written is sufficient for using the non-free cover art, especially when a wikilink to the stand-alone article where the image can be seen is also provided. So, I think the image should be kept in "Ashes to Ashes" and removed from "Pierrot". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I moved the cover down the page so now it's next to the description. Maybe you didn't know that it was already mentioned in the text. It's helpful to see what the words are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.140.252 ( talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Image is unencyclopedic. Image page is being used as a fake article about a non-notable person. Nick— Contact/ Contribs 07:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. The deletion tab of this file specifically states: "Images are usually locally uploaded and protected here at the English Wikipedia since they are used in an interface message or in some widely used template. Don't delete such images, not even if it has a backup copy on Commons." I am not allowed to delete this image. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, this is a bit of a "test case" as far as deletion goes. It is currently fully protected and cascade protected because it's used on the main page. However, the Commons version is not only identical but also fully protected and cascade protected because it's widely used in a number of projects, including enwiki (there is a bot that automatically cascade-protects Commons images used on homepages of large wikis). Plus, the licensing of the Commons version is the actually correct one. I am wondering, in that light is this local copy still needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
551c7354b6a3fbc3f3d710bbd00c27d6addcbaec
while the one on Commons has a97d829a31948a4848f5e5b7f5c3e9f9719cd2d6
, so the files are not identical, although the difference might not be something visible. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 22:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: remove from Norsefire. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-free cover art being used in Norsefire and V for Vendetta. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but I don't think the usage in "Norsefire" meets WP:NFCC#8 according to WP:NFC#cite-note 2. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion of the comic "Warrior" in the movie's article, but nothing in "Norsefire" requires a non-free image. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This file is a clear WP:NFCC#1/ WP:NFC#UUI violation since the subject is still alive. However, rather than tagging it for speedy deletion, I am bringing it here for discussion due to what is listed as its source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Виталий_Стариков,_Анна_Шатилова,_Евгений_Кочергин.JPG . This is a page on the Russian Wikipedia. On that page, it looks like this file has some sort of {{ GFDL}} free-release license. Can that be verifiably transferred over here? Steel1943 ( talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: remove from Pierrot. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-free cover art being used in Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song) and Pierrot#Films, television, and anime. File has a non-free usage rationale for each usage but only its usage in the stand-alone article about the song "Ashes to Ashes" seems appropriate per WP:NFCC#8. Usage in "Pierrot" seems decorative and I don't think it is needed. There are 30 other images being used in the article depicting what a "Pierrot" looks like and so a non-free image is not needed for that. Bowie is mentioned several times in the article, but not sure what is written is sufficient for using the non-free cover art, especially when a wikilink to the stand-alone article where the image can be seen is also provided. So, I think the image should be kept in "Ashes to Ashes" and removed from "Pierrot". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I moved the cover down the page so now it's next to the description. Maybe you didn't know that it was already mentioned in the text. It's helpful to see what the words are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.140.252 ( talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Image is unencyclopedic. Image page is being used as a fake article about a non-notable person. Nick— Contact/ Contribs 07:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. The deletion tab of this file specifically states: "Images are usually locally uploaded and protected here at the English Wikipedia since they are used in an interface message or in some widely used template. Don't delete such images, not even if it has a backup copy on Commons." I am not allowed to delete this image. — ξ xplicit 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, this is a bit of a "test case" as far as deletion goes. It is currently fully protected and cascade protected because it's used on the main page. However, the Commons version is not only identical but also fully protected and cascade protected because it's widely used in a number of projects, including enwiki (there is a bot that automatically cascade-protects Commons images used on homepages of large wikis). Plus, the licensing of the Commons version is the actually correct one. I am wondering, in that light is this local copy still needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
551c7354b6a3fbc3f3d710bbd00c27d6addcbaec
while the one on Commons has a97d829a31948a4848f5e5b7f5c3e9f9719cd2d6
, so the files are not identical, although the difference might not be something visible. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 22:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)