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. It is (correctly) noted in the discussion that "keep local" for highly-used files is an existing precedent, and also (correctly) that this discussion is not the place to overturn or change such a precedent. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xaosflux ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image at Commons existed before the file uploaded here. No legitimate reason to have it here as it won't be deleted at Commons as mere {{ PD-shape}}. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 18:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as local copy primarily due to be used on over a million pages via Module:EditAtWikidata - any changes to these pages on the English Wikipedia should be controlled here on the English Wikipedia, we are unable to control if this file gets deleted or overwritten on commons. This is standard practice for most of our extremely heavily used files (normally ones in the MediaWiki namespace). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You can request upload-protection at Commons for that exact reason. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 18:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

That still takes it out of local control, should we ever actually want this to be changed it should be carefully evaluated and tested here first. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't know about other files, but currently this appears to be the only one shadowing an image at Commons and these conflicts shouldn't exist. For the record, I requested protection at Commons per the security concerns. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Tbhotch: I suspect that that category is just wrong, since the file here is newer I don't think it is actually such a shadow - feel free to fix the category name. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Here is an example of how these are normally tagged up: File:Move-protection-shackle.svg. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I suspect the bot might have gotten it wrong (perhaps there is a different end-of-file marker in the svg code) - if there is an appropriate updated copy at commons I'm also fine with updating the one here to match (to avoid the 'shadow' vs general 'keep local' problem). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

What is this?

I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/Los_Angeles_area_task_force, where this discussion was listed. What is this thing anyway, and why was it listed there? Thanks. It's the first time I've seen anything like this, although I've BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BeenAroundAWhile: very odd that that listing bot put it there, but this image is on 600,000+ articles and over a million pages so it probably confused the listing bot. This image is the little tiny pencil icon that you click on to make an edit of content that is stored over on wikidata. See above for some explanation of why the nominator wants to delete the local copy, and why at least I think it should be maintained. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#File reported czar 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

So this is still going on? @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: was the technical issue and the suspect false positive from that bot not enough? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Xaosflux:I am not so certain on this. My impression is that there isn't any consensus yet on whether the keep argument (local control, sensitive) overrides the delete one (needs to be synchronized, no need for a local copy when the Commons copy is protected) and I am not aware of any policy or guideline that would arbitrate in favour of one side. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm good with "re-synchronize" as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Which I've now done, de-"shadowing" the prior version. As for precedent, see this list. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree with Xaosflux on most things, but this I do not. There is no legitimate reason not to use the Commons version (i.e. allowing it to fulfill its intended purpose). I'm only seeing foolish anti-commons paranoia/hysteria/stacks of tin-foil hats. - FASTILY 01:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Fastily: "keep local" for massively used interface images is fairly common here (see that link right above) - if we want to do away with the practice across the project this backwater page probably isn't the best venue to set the precedent, agree? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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.

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: relisted on 2019 August 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofHesikhebEA37908.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA37907.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

File:"WE" Author's Autograph Page.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Centpacrr ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This sure isn't a logo (per the tag on the file), and there is no clear way to validate that this file is eligible for {{ PD-US-no notice}}. Either way, as a fair-use file, this could potentially fail WP:NFCC#8 at its current location in "WE" (1927 book). Steel1943 ( talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I am completely puzzled as to what possible objection there is to this long standing image. It certainly does not contain any information that is "original enough" to constitute it being intellectually creative as all it contains is a recitation of the name of the book and its author. and states in plain language that it is a numbered autograph page which contains Lindbergh's signature. The fact there were 1,000 of these autographed numbered copies published as a part of the first edition of the book (which is what the entire entry is about) and they are also mentioned in the entry's text as well as the three footnoted citations make this image more than relevant and appropriate. Bottom line is that this 92=year old author's autograph page more then meets the criteria as being in the Public Domain in its lacking sufficient originality to be copyrightable as defined in §101 of the US Copyright Act of 1976, and that the image also serves to illustrate a material fact discussed in the text. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is an edge case, but there is a lot going on here and the individual elements combined could be above the threshold. There is choice of composition, the brief texts, the fern logo, etc. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

See my previous comments above. Also this 1,000 copy "limited edition" page was not actually an integral part of the book as a whole but was tipped in to 1,000 copies of the First Edition in July, 1927 without a separate copyright notice and never used again. Even if someone were to consider it "copyrighted" by implication, as it was never used in any of the many many subsequent Putnam's printings of the book beyond 1,000 copies of the First Edition, it would not even seen to qualify as being included when the copyright of "WE" was renewed, if indeed it was. Centpacrr ( talk) 03:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Tough one. The individual elements considered by themselves are beneath US TOO, but when considered together in this image, copyright could potentially be claimed. Furthermore, PD-US no-notice doesn't appearar applicable and this would definitely fail WP:NFCC#3a/ WP:NFCC#8 if non-free. - FASTILY 00:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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.

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: soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carl savich ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus PD-US claim, was published in 1941. Also ineligible for fair-use, would fail WP:NFCC#8 if converted. FASTILY 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

 Comment: The song itself is still under copyright, but the image just has text and a company logo which might either be below ToO or old enough to be public domain. ( Nipper image is public domain by age) Abzeronow ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

 Comment: the song isn’t PD as it was published in 1941 (less than 95 years old). The text on the record label isn’t really eligible for copyright. But would the image/logo be considered de minimis and therefore acceptable for Commons? -- 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

It might be acceptable for Commons. Pinging @ Magog the Ogre for their thoughts. Abzeronow ( talk) 18:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The illustration is a derivative of a the famous public domain photograph of Nipper. However, the illustration gains its own copyright when drawn. It can't immediately tell if this version of the illustration was registered with the copyright office; probably not. The text is certainly not copyrightable. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magog the Ogre: apparently, this version of Nipper is PD. Loads have been kept on Commons. I think we're debating what to think about the bird logo here and in the other file. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to go with delete for the sake of caution and lack of opposing arguments, due to the bird logo. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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.

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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

File:WHO POSTER.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Merlin 4 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused image that was uploaded by a sock. Has no use at all and unlikely to be used in main space. AmericanAir88^{( talk)} 20:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 04:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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.