WIKIPEDIA:FILES FOR DISCUSSION 2019 JUNE 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

File:Maeneo penye wasemaji wa Kiswahili.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't see any exceptional reason for a local copy--this will only cause the two versions to be out of sync. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It's so if Commons deletes it for copyvio, we'll still have a copy.

[It's not copyvio, of course, but that matters little.] — kwami ( talk) 10:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

But how is that different than having all 50 million Commons files on all 825 WMF projects...? That defeats the purpose of Commons. Also, this can't be a copyvio: it's too simple. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Our opinion of what can and cannot be copyvio is irrelevant if someone at Commons deletes it as copyvio. I uploaded a map this simple that was deleted as copyvio, despite being based on a Commons map just as this one is. If Commons has become more trustworthy since then, of course sidestepping them would defeat the point of Commons. But are they? — kwami ( talk) 01:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. This image was deleted on Commons in 2014 because the image description page did not provide a source. No one at Commons claimed that there was a copyright violation. Wikiacc ( ¶) 01:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Which is just as bad, since there was no warning, no discussion, and Commons does not require that imgs be sourced. — kwami ( talk) 01:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Of course this should be merged to Commons (and that img updated). The question is whether we can trust every single editor at Commons to not go around deleting imgs for spurious reasons, and unfortunately I doubt we can. Every once in a while someone who has no clue what they're doing goes on a deletion binge. — kwami ( talk) 01:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete redundant local copy. "[W]hether we can trust every single editor at Commons to not go around deleting imgs for spurious reasons~" is not, of course, the question, because only admins can delete files. And if an admin makes a deletion in error, there working is a process for that, too. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 15 June 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.

File:Craig-airport-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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Non-free file may actually be free. These logos does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{ PD-logo}}. this file was uploaded to commons via de.wiki as {{ PD-logo}}. User:Huon requested deletion as a precaution. Do kindly provide your comments below. -- 大诺史 ( talk) 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: It might be best to wait to see what happens over on Commons. If Commons won't keep them as {{ PD-logo}} then it would make no sense to re-license them as PD-logo just for local use on English Wikipedia; {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} is sometimes considered an option when files originating outside of the US are not PD in their country of origin, but are PD in the US. That license, however, as far as I have seen is never applied to files whose country of origin is the US. Now, if the files are kept by Commons as "PD-logo", then there's no really reason for them to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; they will either end up deleted per WP:F8 or eventually moved to Commons. In either of those two cases, it might be best to simply upload higher resolution files to Commons and let the local files be deleted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: Linking commons deletion request for reference, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jax-international-logo.PNG. 大诺史 ( talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Did you mean Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jax-international-logo.PNG? Wikiacc ( ¶) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - Thanks for correcting! @ Wikiacc: 大诺史 ( talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Move all to Commons Ineligible for copyright, and I’m pretty sure the file on Commons that has been nominated for deletion is going to be kept as it doesn’t meet TOO. -- 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:12, 9 June 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.

Cricket kit files uploaded by User:XrysD

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: Closing as moot. Files have been reduced in size and tagged as non-free. Anyone wishing to discuss SVG sizes with regards to WP:NFCC#3b is invited to start an RfC at WT:NFC - FASTILY 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

All the kit files uploaded are tagged with {{ non-free no reduce}}. A smaller resolution does not detract from the usefulness of the file, the tag should be removed and the resolution of the files lowered in line with W:NFCC#3b. ~~There is also no evidence of prior publication or that these are derivatives of published works as required by WP:NFCC#4~~. Nthep ( talk) 15:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Nthep, the non-free use justification is adapted from that used with this file which is also the uniform of a sports team and has been accepted and published on wikipedia. I accept that the relative size is larger than that file so will reduce the sizes, but the graphics must remain legible as the use criteria allows. The only non-free use items in the images are the team and company logos which have been published in multiple locations and publications - they are not unique items. I will find other individual examples if necessary, but surely the links to the entities listed in Author/Copyright section which contain examples of the logos are sufficient? I hope this addresses the the issues with these files. Please let me know if this is acceptable and I will make the changes. XrysD ^TALK 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ XrysD: Ok I strike the bit about prior publication as it's only the logos and those are published. However I'm not sure about the legibility point, the county logos appear in most of the articles so I don't see the need for them to be as large as they are. Nthep ( talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Nthep: thanks for the quick response. To address your remaining point: firstly purely in size terms, the logos as displayed on the graphics are only tens of pixels wide. Much smaller than the images used to display them in isolation for each team, so well below acceptable upper size limit. And it is the logo where the issue is as I understand it? Secondly, the reason for the logo's presence is to show the team's uniform in a recognisable manner. Apart from the logo, there is nothing to distinguish them as they are not unique - they are all off-the-shelf clothing designs produced by Adidas or Gray-Nicolls etc. If the logos were illegible or absent it would be impossible to distinguish between two teams with the same clothing design - then the graphic has not achieved its purpose. Thirdly, the graphic is not just to show the team's logo - that is already displayed elsewhere as you note. It is the logo combined with the clothing that is important. This is where the cricket uniforms differ from baseball ones where for each team the whole design is unique. However, I understand your concerns and as I say I think they can stand some reduction, to 60% say, without losing legibility completely, but beyond that would be make them unusable in my view. So to summarise, even at their current size I don't think the logos themselves actually break the size issue criteria, but the graphics could take some reduction if this is still a concern to you. XrysD ^TALK 22:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Even at 240 x 240px there is enough resolution, imo, to pick out the detail and that is all that is required. I'm only using 240 as an example as it's an available size on the files as they currently are. 300 x 300px would more than suffice is my contention - hence the listing here to gain input from others. Nthep ( talk) 12:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

OK thanks @ Nthep: for clarifying your views are more precisely. My view is that if the issue is with the logo size (not the whole image size) which I believe it is, then the logos themselves are already way below any reasonable size limit mandated by WP policy - as demonstrated by the use of club logos in infoboxes at sizes many times larger. So then it just comes down to subjective opinion as to what to reduce them to, to remain credible and useful. I think a reduction to 60% (which is 600x600px) is a reasonable compromise between the current 1000x1000px and your 300x300px that maintains the graphical integrity of the image while not breaking any WP policies. XrysD ^TALK 13:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Reasoning : Files do not violate WP:NFCC#3 reasonable image size use criteria as logo size on them is well below established size limits used with use of other similar logos. However happy to reduce them to 60% current size as will still be legible at that resolution XrysD ^TALK 09:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- The logo itself on these images gains the "infinite resolution" aspect of SVG/vector graphics, and that's not acceptable. -- Masem ( t) 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Reduce to <= 0.1 MP per WP:NFCC#3b. These are entirely too large. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment @ JJMC89: - at the moment the size of the logos on the images is already below this limit. And as has been established, it is the logos that are the issue. WP:NFCC#3b refers to the copyrighted images and only the logos come under this XrysD ^TALK 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The kits are derivatives of non-free works, making them non-free works. The entire works must comply with WP:NFCC. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Reduce to <= 0.1 MP @ JJMC89: Ah OK, it wasn't clear to me from WP:NFCC that a derivative work's free parts could not be considered separately from the non-free parts. Will reduce size to 0.1MP as required for all images and all subsequent images in this series. XrysD ^TALK 16:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
While we're here, these need a free license for XrysD's work per WP:FREER and sources for the incorporated works (logos). — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
@ JJMC89: all cricket counties have logos on their wiki pages which is what I used. For maker logos, where these exist on WP I used them, where they don't I sourced them from the company websites. Both of these are already linked under the author section for each work - do I need to add them to the sources section too? Also how do I add a free license for my work - do I just append it? And what license would be appropriate in this case? XrysD ^TALK 07:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
That's fine for the source. For the license you can use any of the Creative Commons licenses at WP:CC-BY. Example:
Logo(s): {{non-free logo|image has rationale=yes}} Other work: {{CC0|dw=yes}}
I am assuming that you created everything that is not the logos. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
@ JJMC89: Yes I confirm that I created everything in the images that is not the logos. Have added Creative Commons license to all images as requested. XrysD ^TALK 10:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ JJMC89: Thanks for updating the licensing details - I'd misunderstood what you said. It makes much more sense now! XrysD ^TALK 14:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The application of WP:NFCC#3b to SVG files has always been a bit of a problem as we've never reached a consensus on what it means for the resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: perhaps the general issue of the use of SVG graphics for non-free images should be raised elsewhere if that is the only remaining concern to you. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of files that fall into this category so it has implications for every one of those files too. In the meantime may I suggest that the consensus for my files is that they now satisfy WP:NFCC#3 as it is currently understood. This is why they were originally listed. XrysD ^TALK 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply
I was thinking that as well, but I don't remember any of the past discussions on the topic coming to a conclusion. Pinging Marchjuly and Masem as they did participate in the conversations on this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The only acceptable allowance of non-free vector images is for logo images that have been acquired directly from works of the company/group represented by the logo. This does not mean that logo can be reused for other purposes in its vector format. There is no reason that these uniform images cannot be made in a raster format, the logo still visible but small enough to not trip up anything. -- Masem ( t) 14:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Firstly I am happy to produce PNG versions instead. I created SVGs because as far as I understand it, Wikipedia promotes the use of SVG over PNG. So would not converting to PNG from SVG be a backwards step? As far as logo size goes, as I understood it WP:Logos requirements for SVG state this image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary. It seems the de-facto accepted upper limit for logos is 0.1MP or 300x300px - about 10x the size they are currently rendered at. So I'm interested to know why you think the 300x300px size limit doesn't apply to logos in derivative works. Surely if you think logos are recognisable at that kind of rendered size, should not the same should apply to all logos in all forms? What makes their use in derivative works different? I'm not trying to dispute your judgement, just trying to understand it XrysD ^TALK 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply
One possible problem with what your suggesting is WP:NFCC#3a. If there's already a non-free logo being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox, then there is really no reason for the same file or something basically equivalent to the same file to be used in another part of the article. In other words, if the primary logo can be seen in the main infobox, there's no real reason for it to be seen (at least not with the same degree of clarity) as part of another file such as the team's uniform. The same basic encyclopedic information could be provided simply showing the team's uniform without the logo or with a blurred or much smaller, less clearer version of the logo.
As for svg vs. png, I believe that Masem's comment has to do with the logo files themselves. Per WP:FREER, it's generally preferred that only official vector versions of copyrighted content released by the original copyright holder be uploaded. Assuming that you aren't the original creator of the logos, you shouldn't really take a png file of the logo released by the copyright holder and convert it to an svg version you create. Lots of people do this kind of thing for sure, but i don't think it's really policy-compliant. At the same time, if you are 100% the original creator of the uniform files and want to release svg versions of them under a free license, then you can. They only really become derivative works once you start incorporating other copyrighted elements into them and even one non-free element would, in principle, make the entire file subject to WP:NFCC. A possible exception to this, however, might be the way you incorporate the logos into the uniform files; for example, if the logos are considered incidental or otherwise de minimis (see c:COM:DM for more details), then copyright status of the logo shouldn't be much of an issue. It's only when the logos start to become clearly distinguishable elements in their own right that I think NFCCP starts to come into play. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your input @ Marchjuly:. I think the position for logos in isolation is now clear to me from what you and Masem have said. I also now understand the reason that the rule for the max size of isolated logos doesn't apply to their use in derivative works. So it comes down to whether at the size they are presented at in my files they satisfy the De-Minimis criteria. I believe that at the resolution they are currently rendered at, they do satisfy this. At most they represent 3% of the whole image size (3x20x20px+2x30x30px in 300x300pix). If you didn't have the team logos at the top of the infobox to refer to it would be impossible to recognise them at all at that size. So the remaining issue I guess is whether they should be PNG format or whether the rule that covers the size that SVGs are rendered at is sufficient. XrysD ^TALK 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Stefan2: Are you still editing these days? I recall that at one point in the past, we had a discussion about reducing the size of SVG files, so I'm not sure if you may be able to provide som input regarding the SVG concern referenced in this discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:18, 25 June 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.

June 9

File:Maeneo penye wasemaji wa Kiswahili.png

File:Craig-airport-logo.PNG

Cricket kit files uploaded by User:XrysD

June 9

File:Maeneo penye wasemaji wa Kiswahili.png

File:Craig-airport-logo.PNG

Cricket kit files uploaded by User:XrysD

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook