March 18
File:The Tilled Field.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep on The Tilled Field (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale), The Garden of Earthly Delights. Removed from History of painting and Joan Miró}. The replacement image is the same image and there's no explanation here for what is being argued about that. Everyone should support its usage at the article on the painting itself but that's unexplainable when it doesn't have a rationale for it. There's consensus that it's usage at The Garden is in line NFCC#8. There is no response provided for a lack of critical commentary at the artists' page (NFCC#3a supports reducing usage) or at the History of Painting page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:The Tilled Field.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#1, except in The Garden of Earthly Delights: replaceable by File:The Tilled Field.jpg which is {{ PD-1923-abroad}} and is of similar art style. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in The Garden of Earthly Delights and other articles. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep passes
WP:NFCC#8 and
WP:NFCC#1 in
The Garden of Earthly Delights and
Joan Miró and
History of Painting...
Modernist (
talk) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There are indeed discussions about the image in those articles
[1]....
Modernist (
talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Modernist - "During the early 20th century, Bosch's work enjoyed a popular resurrection. The early surrealists' fascination with dreamscapes, the autonomy of the imagination, and a free-flowing connection to the unconscious brought about a renewed interest in his work. Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[113] and Salvador Dalí[114] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor. Miró's The Tilled Field contains several parallels to Bosch's Garden: similar flocks of birds; pools from which living creatures emerge; and oversize disembodied ears all echo the Dutch master's work.[113]"
Rybkovich (
talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not critical discussion. It just means that the painting is briefly mentioned. It's not necessary to display the image just for that. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary that is extremely relevant to that critical discussion... Modernist ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is crucial critical discussion, totally critical to our understanding of Bosch's relationship to 20th century painting. Miro directly quotes Bosch as demonstrated in the article's discussion...
Modernist (
talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The painting is only mentioned in that section. Precisely the situation which is described in WP:NFC#UUI §6: we link to other pages instead of including non-free content. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not critical discussion. It just means that the painting is briefly mentioned. It's not necessary to display the image just for that. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Modernist - "During the early 20th century, Bosch's work enjoyed a popular resurrection. The early surrealists' fascination with dreamscapes, the autonomy of the imagination, and a free-flowing connection to the unconscious brought about a renewed interest in his work. Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[113] and Salvador Dalí[114] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor. Miró's The Tilled Field contains several parallels to Bosch's Garden: similar flocks of birds; pools from which living creatures emerge; and oversize disembodied ears all echo the Dutch master's work.[113]"
Rybkovich (
talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There are indeed discussions about the image in those articles
[1]....
Modernist (
talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove from all articles except
The Garden of Earthly Delights. Its current usage violates
WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent.
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and
its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. —
ξ
xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The coat of arms of Canada was a completely different situation where that image was used in dozens of places; however intelligence and discretion and common sense says leave the Miro painting in the few historical articles to which it is adding relevant and educational information and value as well as The Garden of Earthly Delights... Modernist ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Explicit, it seems to be that Garden is the least appropriate article to include it. It obviously belongs in The Tilled Field (the article about this exact painting, and on Miró's article, the painter. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @ Stefan2: Just checking, in your nomination statement, you claimed that the nominated file can be replaced by itself. Was that intentional? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for Miró, Tilled Field, and Garden. I completely agree with Modernist, it is not merely a brief mention, but a detailed discussion of Bosch's influence on Miró and the image is clearly needed to show the similarities. I'm much less sure about including it in History of painting. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep at The Farm (Miró), remove from Joan Miró While it's expressly not listed for deletion, it would be helpful in the future that people clarify the pages where it is used and not at issue. The lengths of these discussion lend itself to changes. There is no consensus that the commentary at the Miro page constitutes sufficient critical commentary to support the additional usage. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) }}
- File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Joan Miró. Claimed to be from 1921-22, but the year of first publication is unknown. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep seems to be PD image; per WP:AGF and the reported date... Modernist ( talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong again Stefan - there is a discussion regarding the painting already in the article [2] and there is this - [3], show some class and add this discussion to the article........or don't you know how?... Modernist ( talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Good point Modernist - however the proposal is to delete the image because it is not discussed .... but it is
here. This has lots of stuff about the painting. Stefan2 .... you are allowed to improve the wiki?? Why not make the improvements you identify?
Victuallers (
talk) 08:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The file has not been proposed for deletion but for removal from one article. Since the painting has an article, WP:NFC#UUI §6 says that we should link to that article instead of using the painting in additional articles. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove from Joan Miró. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The coat of arms of Canada was a completely different situation where that image was used in dozens of places; however intelligence and discretion and common sense says leave the Miro painting in the few articles to which it is adding relevant and educational information and value especially to the Joan Miro article... Modernist ( talk) 21:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:WWMTCW7.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus ★ Bigr Tex 21:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:WWMTCW7.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wcquidditch ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Logo is being treated as non-free, but I'm wondering if it is too simple for copyright protection and thus OK to license as {{ PD-logo}}. Does the color gradient push this above the threshold of originality for the US? The "CW" is apparently ineligible for copyright as seen in File:The CW.svg, the The CW network's main logo; moreover, there are a number of CW affiliates which use the same basic logo with some minor coloring differences which also may be candidates for "PD-logo" if this particular is OK as PD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure if free. The coloration scheme of the "CW" makes me question if it is too unique to be public domain. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Zimmber logo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Zimmber logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Finnusertop ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is this logo (just coloured letters) really copyrightable? I am not sure myself, does the overlap between letters count as "original"? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- As uploaded, I opted to employ caution. Particularly since the country of origin is probably India and
c:C:TOO has nothing on Indian law. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- India essentially seems to have copied an old British law and then made some amendments, so it's not unlikely that India uses the same originality criteria as the United Kingdom. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've been looking around and it seems (assuming that I wasn't looking at outdated laws) to me that in India, copyright is applied on the basis of subject matter, not as a general standard like a TOO. Worth noting though that for enWikipedia purposes we only consider US copyright aspects as noted on Wikipedia:Image use policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tag as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. As Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out, as a file that may or may not be public domain in its country of origin and since its country of origin is not the United States, our concern on the English Wikipedia is if it is eligible for copyright in the United States. (Granted, this means it will probably never go to the Commons since it requires the file to be public domain in its country of origin and the United States, and that is probably not the case with this file.) In regards to how unique this image is in regards to it possibly surpassing the United States' threshold of originality, I do not think it does since it's just letters with a coloration effect that occurs when mixing the two colors together of the two letters ... which doesn't look unique enough. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep in Football Association of Singapore, remove all other instances. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muffin Wizard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free logo currently being used in Football Association of Singapore, Singapore national football team, and Singapore women's national football team; file was also being used in Singapore results and fixtures (football), but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Each of the current uses has a non-free use rationale, but only the one for the association's article seems valid based upon previous NFCR/FFD discussions and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Football Association of Singapore", and remove from the individual team articles and the results article (if re-added). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 18:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Cabot-corp-logo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Tagged as {{ PD-logo}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Cabot-corp-logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lamro ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Logo being used in the infobox of Cabot Corporation. Uploaded as non-free, but am wondering if this is simple enough for {{ PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:SurgeRadioLogo2014.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Closedmouth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:SurgeRadioLogo2014.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andre666 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Firstly, this is PD in the US, even if not the UK, so {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} applies and it doesn't need to be fair use. However, I've replaced it with File:Surge (radio station) logo.png, which is better, so I recommend deleting this as obsolete. Nick— Contact/ Contribs 18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:TDR.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Calliopejen1 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:TDR.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jbulldog ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Low quality image of a racoon, unused. Apparently never used and could be replaced with anything on commons:Procyon lotor. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Vinay.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete June 2016 revision. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Vinay.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vinay Gobindlal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This contains two files, both of unidentified origin and nature and seemingly unusable. They also shadow a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the file uploaded on 02:14, 8 June 2006; keep the original file. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Viking Hellas Logo.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Viking Hellas Logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MKY661 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The current logo appears to be incorrect; neither the source links nor the article links show it. Further, a more correct logo appears to exist on Commons under this same title and is a free image. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It is used at Fly Hellas since it's a prior logo but there's no discussion that would justify its usage. The current logo isn't at Commons, since File:Fly Hellas Logo.png is clearly non-free. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Harrogate Stonefall Cemetery war stone 1295542316.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Harrogate Stonefall Cemetery war stone 1295542316.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Redvers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This photography exists on Commons under the same name but with higher resolution. It is tagged as {{ Keep local}} though, not sure why? Uploader inactive for almost six years. Some other similar photographies have been nominated here with the same rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Commons needs to be deleted and re-done. It was listed for no Commons
here because the page was listed as 2.0 in Commons and 3.0 here so it's the wrong license. Upon further review, the editor re-uploaded the image with the newer version being 2.0 so I don't know if the retroactive reduction of CC matter. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the Flickr account name and the link to Wikipedia I think the uploader here and on Flickr are the same person. I am not convinced that this local version having a different license (despite really only being a size difference) does justify having a local copy. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:MeridianaflyLogo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:MeridianaflyLogo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ziansh ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This logo is currently shadowing commons:File:MeridianaflyLogo.png which is tagged as free. Further, checking the website indicates the current version is not the correct one. Either the local logo or the Commons one should be deleted, I think, after making sure the right logo is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
March 18
File:The Tilled Field.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep on The Tilled Field (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale), The Garden of Earthly Delights. Removed from History of painting and Joan Miró}. The replacement image is the same image and there's no explanation here for what is being argued about that. Everyone should support its usage at the article on the painting itself but that's unexplainable when it doesn't have a rationale for it. There's consensus that it's usage at The Garden is in line NFCC#8. There is no response provided for a lack of critical commentary at the artists' page (NFCC#3a supports reducing usage) or at the History of Painting page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:The Tilled Field.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#1, except in The Garden of Earthly Delights: replaceable by File:The Tilled Field.jpg which is {{ PD-1923-abroad}} and is of similar art style. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in The Garden of Earthly Delights and other articles. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep passes
WP:NFCC#8 and
WP:NFCC#1 in
The Garden of Earthly Delights and
Joan Miró and
History of Painting...
Modernist (
talk) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There are indeed discussions about the image in those articles
[1]....
Modernist (
talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Modernist - "During the early 20th century, Bosch's work enjoyed a popular resurrection. The early surrealists' fascination with dreamscapes, the autonomy of the imagination, and a free-flowing connection to the unconscious brought about a renewed interest in his work. Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[113] and Salvador Dalí[114] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor. Miró's The Tilled Field contains several parallels to Bosch's Garden: similar flocks of birds; pools from which living creatures emerge; and oversize disembodied ears all echo the Dutch master's work.[113]"
Rybkovich (
talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not critical discussion. It just means that the painting is briefly mentioned. It's not necessary to display the image just for that. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary that is extremely relevant to that critical discussion... Modernist ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is crucial critical discussion, totally critical to our understanding of Bosch's relationship to 20th century painting. Miro directly quotes Bosch as demonstrated in the article's discussion...
Modernist (
talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The painting is only mentioned in that section. Precisely the situation which is described in WP:NFC#UUI §6: we link to other pages instead of including non-free content. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not critical discussion. It just means that the painting is briefly mentioned. It's not necessary to display the image just for that. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Modernist - "During the early 20th century, Bosch's work enjoyed a popular resurrection. The early surrealists' fascination with dreamscapes, the autonomy of the imagination, and a free-flowing connection to the unconscious brought about a renewed interest in his work. Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[113] and Salvador Dalí[114] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor. Miró's The Tilled Field contains several parallels to Bosch's Garden: similar flocks of birds; pools from which living creatures emerge; and oversize disembodied ears all echo the Dutch master's work.[113]"
Rybkovich (
talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There are indeed discussions about the image in those articles
[1]....
Modernist (
talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove from all articles except
The Garden of Earthly Delights. Its current usage violates
WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent.
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and
its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. —
ξ
xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The coat of arms of Canada was a completely different situation where that image was used in dozens of places; however intelligence and discretion and common sense says leave the Miro painting in the few historical articles to which it is adding relevant and educational information and value as well as The Garden of Earthly Delights... Modernist ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Explicit, it seems to be that Garden is the least appropriate article to include it. It obviously belongs in The Tilled Field (the article about this exact painting, and on Miró's article, the painter. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @ Stefan2: Just checking, in your nomination statement, you claimed that the nominated file can be replaced by itself. Was that intentional? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for Miró, Tilled Field, and Garden. I completely agree with Modernist, it is not merely a brief mention, but a detailed discussion of Bosch's influence on Miró and the image is clearly needed to show the similarities. I'm much less sure about including it in History of painting. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep at The Farm (Miró), remove from Joan Miró While it's expressly not listed for deletion, it would be helpful in the future that people clarify the pages where it is used and not at issue. The lengths of these discussion lend itself to changes. There is no consensus that the commentary at the Miro page constitutes sufficient critical commentary to support the additional usage. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) }}
- File:TheFarmMiro21to22.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Victuallers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Joan Miró. Claimed to be from 1921-22, but the year of first publication is unknown. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep seems to be PD image; per WP:AGF and the reported date... Modernist ( talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong again Stefan - there is a discussion regarding the painting already in the article [2] and there is this - [3], show some class and add this discussion to the article........or don't you know how?... Modernist ( talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Good point Modernist - however the proposal is to delete the image because it is not discussed .... but it is
here. This has lots of stuff about the painting. Stefan2 .... you are allowed to improve the wiki?? Why not make the improvements you identify?
Victuallers (
talk) 08:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The file has not been proposed for deletion but for removal from one article. Since the painting has an article, WP:NFC#UUI §6 says that we should link to that article instead of using the painting in additional articles. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There's no sourced critical discussion about the image. In order to use this in a subsection, you need to add a section or two of sourced critical discussion about the image itself to the article. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove from Joan Miró. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ xplicit 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The coat of arms of Canada was a completely different situation where that image was used in dozens of places; however intelligence and discretion and common sense says leave the Miro painting in the few articles to which it is adding relevant and educational information and value especially to the Joan Miro article... Modernist ( talk) 21:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:WWMTCW7.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus ★ Bigr Tex 21:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:WWMTCW7.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wcquidditch ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Logo is being treated as non-free, but I'm wondering if it is too simple for copyright protection and thus OK to license as {{ PD-logo}}. Does the color gradient push this above the threshold of originality for the US? The "CW" is apparently ineligible for copyright as seen in File:The CW.svg, the The CW network's main logo; moreover, there are a number of CW affiliates which use the same basic logo with some minor coloring differences which also may be candidates for "PD-logo" if this particular is OK as PD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure if free. The coloration scheme of the "CW" makes me question if it is too unique to be public domain. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Zimmber logo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Zimmber logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Finnusertop ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is this logo (just coloured letters) really copyrightable? I am not sure myself, does the overlap between letters count as "original"? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- As uploaded, I opted to employ caution. Particularly since the country of origin is probably India and
c:C:TOO has nothing on Indian law. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- India essentially seems to have copied an old British law and then made some amendments, so it's not unlikely that India uses the same originality criteria as the United Kingdom. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've been looking around and it seems (assuming that I wasn't looking at outdated laws) to me that in India, copyright is applied on the basis of subject matter, not as a general standard like a TOO. Worth noting though that for enWikipedia purposes we only consider US copyright aspects as noted on Wikipedia:Image use policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tag as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. As Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out, as a file that may or may not be public domain in its country of origin and since its country of origin is not the United States, our concern on the English Wikipedia is if it is eligible for copyright in the United States. (Granted, this means it will probably never go to the Commons since it requires the file to be public domain in its country of origin and the United States, and that is probably not the case with this file.) In regards to how unique this image is in regards to it possibly surpassing the United States' threshold of originality, I do not think it does since it's just letters with a coloration effect that occurs when mixing the two colors together of the two letters ... which doesn't look unique enough. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep in Football Association of Singapore, remove all other instances. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muffin Wizard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free logo currently being used in Football Association of Singapore, Singapore national football team, and Singapore women's national football team; file was also being used in Singapore results and fixtures (football), but I removed it per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Each of the current uses has a non-free use rationale, but only the one for the association's article seems valid based upon previous NFCR/FFD discussions and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Suggest keep for "Football Association of Singapore", and remove from the individual team articles and the results article (if re-added). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 18:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Cabot-corp-logo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Tagged as {{ PD-logo}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Cabot-corp-logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lamro ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Logo being used in the infobox of Cabot Corporation. Uploaded as non-free, but am wondering if this is simple enough for {{ PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:SurgeRadioLogo2014.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Closedmouth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:SurgeRadioLogo2014.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andre666 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Firstly, this is PD in the US, even if not the UK, so {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} applies and it doesn't need to be fair use. However, I've replaced it with File:Surge (radio station) logo.png, which is better, so I recommend deleting this as obsolete. Nick— Contact/ Contribs 18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:TDR.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Calliopejen1 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:TDR.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jbulldog ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Low quality image of a racoon, unused. Apparently never used and could be replaced with anything on commons:Procyon lotor. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Vinay.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete June 2016 revision. — ξ xplicit 02:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Vinay.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vinay Gobindlal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This contains two files, both of unidentified origin and nature and seemingly unusable. They also shadow a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the file uploaded on 02:14, 8 June 2006; keep the original file. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Viking Hellas Logo.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Viking Hellas Logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MKY661 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The current logo appears to be incorrect; neither the source links nor the article links show it. Further, a more correct logo appears to exist on Commons under this same title and is a free image. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It is used at Fly Hellas since it's a prior logo but there's no discussion that would justify its usage. The current logo isn't at Commons, since File:Fly Hellas Logo.png is clearly non-free. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Harrogate Stonefall Cemetery war stone 1295542316.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Harrogate Stonefall Cemetery war stone 1295542316.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Redvers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This photography exists on Commons under the same name but with higher resolution. It is tagged as {{ Keep local}} though, not sure why? Uploader inactive for almost six years. Some other similar photographies have been nominated here with the same rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Commons needs to be deleted and re-done. It was listed for no Commons
here because the page was listed as 2.0 in Commons and 3.0 here so it's the wrong license. Upon further review, the editor re-uploaded the image with the newer version being 2.0 so I don't know if the retroactive reduction of CC matter. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the Flickr account name and the link to Wikipedia I think the uploader here and on Flickr are the same person. I am not convinced that this local version having a different license (despite really only being a size difference) does justify having a local copy. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:MeridianaflyLogo.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by BigrTex ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:MeridianaflyLogo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ziansh ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This logo is currently shadowing commons:File:MeridianaflyLogo.png which is tagged as free. Further, checking the website indicates the current version is not the correct one. Either the local logo or the Commons one should be deleted, I think, after making sure the right logo is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.