![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 73 |
Logo removed from child organization articles per UUI#17. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Club Africain appears to be the main article, with violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17 on the other pages. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Image seems to be simple enough so that it can be licensed as {{ PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed this screenshot from Coal Miner's Daughter (film) from the plot section of the article and someone questioned me about it on my talk page. It does have a fair use rationale for this article that I feel it not valid, but the image is also used in Sissy Spacek and East Texas and I felt some other opinions would be helpful. Aspects ( talk) 04:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Most files are not original enough to be copyrighted according to the discussion and have been retagged as PD-USOnly or PD-Logo depending upon whether they are US logos or not. Some files were kept as non-free. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if any of the following non-free logos are too simple to be protected by copyright and OK to change to {{ PD-USonly}} or {{ PD-logo}}:
Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Image deleted as orphaned for being replaceable non-free imagery. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This file is a video screenshot, used in two articles: one about an actor and one about his fictional character. Is this allowed? The guideline text "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" seems to imply it would only be allowed in commentary on the show or the character. – Brianhe ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following were all being used in a gallery of former logos in The Edge 96.ONE. I removed the gallery per WP:NFG since none of the logos were the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and their usage was mainly decorative. They've all been tagged as orphans, but I just would like some opinions on whether any their licensing could be changed to {[tl|PD-logo}}, {{ PD-USonly}} or some other free license.
For reference, the last three are pretty much the same as File:Edge 96 One logo.png being used in the infobox. The only difference between them is the slogan being used and the coloring. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
File is claimed under fair use as a TV screenshot used for identification or critical commentary on the program in question, but instead, the image is used to illustrate a biography of a living person, for whom it should be possible to obtain a free image. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The image can be replaced with a free alternative. It will be deleted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in North Melbourne Football Club guernseys#Gallery of designs. All of the other images are taken from Common and this is the only one licensed as non-free. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I am not sure if use is OK per WP:NFTABLES. Should the image be removed per "NFTABLES"? - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Original title was " http://www.distilnetworks.com/wp-content/themes/distil/images/logo.png", renamed to avoid issues on TOC here --Masem)
Request addition of company logo file for Distil Networks under Non-free content criteria. Logo used on /info/en/?search=Distil_Networks article.
[1] (changed from ref to direct link to avoid floating ref footer -Masem)
Tonybdistil ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks MASEM, but I get the following error: "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it." Tonybdistil ( talk) 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure about this image since I'm honestly not sure if this is a free image or a non-free image. I think it is free since someone took the picture, but I think it is non-free since it includes a logo. However, either way, I do not think its use as a non-free image since it's intended purpose is to identify the company, but a logo by itself would suffice to do that; and, if it is to identify the subject of the article, its current placement in the article is incorrect. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That Quentin died in 1999 does not mean that no photographer has ever taken a photo of him that the photographer will never be willing to release under a suitable license, for surely such a photographer must exist. The death of the subject of a photo does not de facto that only a fair use argument must be resorted to in order to represent them, as the copyright holder is not the person in the photograph but the photographer (when all of THOSE are dead, we will have the basis of a fair use argument!) . KDS4444 Talk 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is probably used improperly. There is already a free image in the infobox in Chicago Police Department that helps identify the subject. For that reason, this image seems improperly used and unnecessary. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussion as original rationale no longer applies: all other referenced replacements in this discussion have been deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has a non-free rationale for D'Elidas, but it seem unnecessary per WP:NFCC#1 because File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg is also being used to provide essentially the same information. Granted the Commons image's licensing is questionable (I am going to ask for clarification at Commons VP), but for the time being it doesn't appear the the picture of the bottle of hot sauce is needed. There is also File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg on Commons which seems to be the essentially the same image and was uploaded by the same editor on about an hour later exactly the same day. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep but remove from all galleries. The image was removed from all articles except Jean Dubuffet. Unlike the other articles, in Jean Dubuffet it is not a member of a gallery and it is not clear that there is a free alternative. If a free image of this or another of Dubuffet's works becomes available, that image should be substituted on his article and this image deleted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The file violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles in which contain the word 'painting': the picture is used in a gallery format and isn't critically discussed there. Pointing at the article about the painter should be enough, see WP:NFC#UUI §6. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 ( talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in the infobox of 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 WP:NFC#UUI. From this webpage it looks like the logo was used for at least two different years. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:688 Club logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image seems simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" and not as "non-free". - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:Socceraustralia.png. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has non-free use rationale for Football Federation Australia#History, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion so the image should be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 5#File:Shichinin choushou promo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has a non-free use rationale for Shin SD Sengokuden Shichinin no Choushougun Hen, but use seem to be primarily decorative and not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The file was deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs) at FFD. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Unclear attribution - I can only find a Jennifer Osborne on Flickr who has a different picture of a Hitler cat, and this is marked as all-rights-reserved. The image used here appears to be a bad photoshop of a watermarked image on catsthatlooklikehitler.com.
Any potential non-free usage as "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is undermined by the fact that there is an entire website called "catthatlookslikehitler.com" - it would be possible to find a different, licence-friendly cat that also looks like Hitler. McGeddon ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
File has been deleted per speedy deletion criterion F5. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
These arms are not, and never have been, those of the "Barony of Blackhall" (which shows every sign of being a fabrication or hoax). They are the arms of a certain Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, to whom they were granted in 1995. Use in the article Barony of Blackhall is thus apparently not justifiable. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
File moved to Wikipedia Commons at C:File:WOR (AM) logo 2011-2013.jpg; in effect, the file local to Wikipedia has been deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Logo seems simple enough so that it doesn't need to be licensed as non-free, but rather as {{ PD-logo}}. If it is, however, really non-free, then I'm not sure if it's use in WOR (AM) satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:21April1967emblem.PNG for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Phoenix in popular culture and Georgios Papadopoulos. It has a non-free use rationale for each article but use does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either article. Use in "Phoenix in popular culture" also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 since there area a number of images at Commons which could be used to express the same idea. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on Phoenix in popular culture for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Both images are being used in Phoenix in popular culture. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is being used purely for "decorative" purposes. Use of images does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 since no context is being discussed and WP:NFCC#1 since there are a number of images on Commons which could be used for the same purpose. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in multiple articles had has a non-free rationale for each. The question is whether the logo of a national federation can be used or should be used in individual team articles. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles, and that logo specific to the child entity should be used instead (ala WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg above). The national teams of many countries, however, do use the same logo for all age-levels of competition and both men and women's team. Most of the official pages linked to for these teams will all show the same logo being used, so I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such cases. I've removed some similar logos in the past per No. 17, so I would just like a little more clarification. I can re-add the logos if there use is actully considered acceptable. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on 7 Medical Battalion Group for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Both images are being used in 7 Medical Battalion Group#Selection and training. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it's not clear if either usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. There is some discussion of the badges in the section and how they compare to another military badge, but none of the discussion is sourced. A "citation needed" can be added to the text, but not sure how that affects the use of the images. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#File:Spider-Man punching Sandman in Spider-Man 3.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the movie Spider-Man 3. It has a non-free use rationale for Spider-Man 3 and Sandman (Marvel Comics). Use might be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 for the movie's article since it is used in part of the article where special effects are discussed. Use does not seem acceptable at all for the character article since the image itself is not being discussed and is simply being used to illustrate (rather poorly in my opinion) that Thomas Haden Church played the character in the movie. Church is still alive so WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied and you can't really identify him at all from the image so the image is not needed at all per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
File listed at and deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 30#File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Kingdom of Nepal. Use in article seems primarily decorative and, therefore, does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Image also has no source information other than "The logo may be obtained from the Kingdom of Nepal" so I tagged it as {{ di-no source}}. This was reverted, however, by this edit. Isn't "The logo may be obtained from XXXXX" just the default text the template adds when no source is provided? Is that acceptable as a "source" for an image? - Marchjuly ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:75th-logo-bhm.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport#History. Image is not discussed at all and usage appears primarily decorative. I don't think the image is needed per WP:NFCC#8 for the reader to understand the sentence "In 2006 Birmingham International Airport celebrated its 75th year." - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Taftlogo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this image eligible for copyright protection in the US? George Ho ( talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#Images on Sandman (Marvel Comics) for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Two more images being used in Sandman (Marvel Comics). Neither image is the subject of any critical commentary within the article and each seems to have been added for decorative reasons.- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:Eddiebrocktthree.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a user-created montage of three separate images. No sources are given for the images other than Wikipedia articles. Seems to be an attempt to compare and contrast how the character appears in three different TV shows/films, but this is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself so not sure if this use satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:3-brand.svg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Three Ireland, Hutchison 3G and Three UK. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article and each company is stated to be subsidiary of the Hutchison Whampoa. Image appears to be shared by all three companies, but slightly different versions of the image can be found on the relevant official websites ( Three Ireland, Hutchinson 3G and Three UK). Does Nop. 17 of Wp:NFC#UUI apply here and should the website logs be used instead? - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:30th anniversary badge best.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in Fairbairn College#30th Anniversary. Not sure if use satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the only statement regarding the image is unsourced and simply says "A special lapel badge, seen alongside, was presented to every learner and educator to be worn during the anniversary year." - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:37 Armd Engr Sqn Noddy.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in 37 Armoured Engineer Squadron. No source is listed for the image and I tried searching online, but I was only able to find this webpage which does not look to be an official website of either the unit or the British Army. Is the above website OK to use as the source of the image or should the image be tagged as {{ di-no source}}.
Are military unit logos like this generally considered non-free or do they qualify as public domain? I've come across a few similar images which lack any source information other than to say, for example, "British Army" or "44 Regiment", etc. Sometimes I am able to find an official page where the image is used, but sometimes I am only able to find blogs or forum pages where the image is used. How should such images be dealt with per Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3d world atlas icon.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in the infobox 3D World Atlas. Image has a non-free rationale for the article but I don't see the relevance of it per WP:NFCC#8 since it' simply shows a globe and there is another image showing essentially the same thing in the infobox. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3Dfxlogo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in 3dfx Interactive#Early history. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it is not the subject of any sourced commentary at all. The only purpose of the image seems to be to say the company's former logo used to be written with a capital "D". If this information is relevant, then it that text can be used to express this fact and that an image is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3player logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Use seems unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since File:3player.png is also being used in the infobox for 3Player - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in Wonderbra#History. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, and the claim is that it is relevant to the discussion about the "Canadian Lady Corsette Co. Ltd." The image itself, however, is not the subject of any sourced critical discussion and the connection between "Wonderbra" and "Canadian Lady" can being sufficiently explained using text. So, image is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D.gif for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free logo used to illustrate former logo in History of S.C. Siracusa#From Palazzolo to Sport Club Siracusa. Usage does not seem appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 since logo is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the section. The only (indirect) mention of the logo is "The team's colors were green and yellow." However, the logo has a nfur for A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D. which redirects to the current article. Maybe at one time there was a stand-alone article for the old team, but not sure how that logos current non-free usage. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 15#File:Liga I logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in Liga I#Sponsorship to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 since the current text is more than sufficient to explain things.
Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the WP:NFCCP, and simply tagged with {{ di-orphaned fair use}} or should it go to WP:FFD for a full discussion? - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Super Victor and UEFA Euro 2016#Mascot. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I'm not sure if the image is needed in the tournament article per WP:NFCC#8. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed.
In addition to the aforementioned article, the images was also added to UEFA European Championship mascot, but I removed that per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the stand-alone article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:ABC RTV6 official.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in WRTV#WRTV to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:KCUV-FM.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Former radio station logo being used in KVOQ-FM#Former logo. Image is not subject of any sourced commentary within article so contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. In addition, usage for decorative purposes in a gallery or a gallery-like way is not something allowed per WP:NFG. Image, however, might be too simple to be considered non-free and therefore may be a candidate for {{ PD-logo}} and {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure this one qualifies as a non-copyrightable textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
File is no longer transcluded in any non-article pages. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this copyrightable? If so, then the file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The uploader of this image says that the depiction of the 18th century boat is from a 19th century book. This probably means the depiction is actually in the public domain (published before 1923/1946). -- 189.25.241.15 ( talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be consensus to remove it from every page except Croatian Football Federation. -- Brustopher ( talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It is the logo of the Croatian Football Federation, but it is also used in articles about teams (i.e. subdivisions of the federation). The picture also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus to remove from every page except FC Barcelona-- Brustopher ( talk) 12:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in FC Barcelona. SLBedit ( talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus to remove from all pages except Sporting Clube de Portugal. -- Brustopher ( talk) 12:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Sporting Clube de Portugal. SLBedit ( talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 73 |
Logo removed from child organization articles per UUI#17. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Club Africain appears to be the main article, with violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17 on the other pages. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Image seems to be simple enough so that it can be licensed as {{ PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed this screenshot from Coal Miner's Daughter (film) from the plot section of the article and someone questioned me about it on my talk page. It does have a fair use rationale for this article that I feel it not valid, but the image is also used in Sissy Spacek and East Texas and I felt some other opinions would be helpful. Aspects ( talk) 04:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Most files are not original enough to be copyrighted according to the discussion and have been retagged as PD-USOnly or PD-Logo depending upon whether they are US logos or not. Some files were kept as non-free. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if any of the following non-free logos are too simple to be protected by copyright and OK to change to {{ PD-USonly}} or {{ PD-logo}}:
Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Image deleted as orphaned for being replaceable non-free imagery. -- Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This file is a video screenshot, used in two articles: one about an actor and one about his fictional character. Is this allowed? The guideline text "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" seems to imply it would only be allowed in commentary on the show or the character. – Brianhe ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following were all being used in a gallery of former logos in The Edge 96.ONE. I removed the gallery per WP:NFG since none of the logos were the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and their usage was mainly decorative. They've all been tagged as orphans, but I just would like some opinions on whether any their licensing could be changed to {[tl|PD-logo}}, {{ PD-USonly}} or some other free license.
For reference, the last three are pretty much the same as File:Edge 96 One logo.png being used in the infobox. The only difference between them is the slogan being used and the coloring. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
File is claimed under fair use as a TV screenshot used for identification or critical commentary on the program in question, but instead, the image is used to illustrate a biography of a living person, for whom it should be possible to obtain a free image. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The image can be replaced with a free alternative. It will be deleted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in North Melbourne Football Club guernseys#Gallery of designs. All of the other images are taken from Common and this is the only one licensed as non-free. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I am not sure if use is OK per WP:NFTABLES. Should the image be removed per "NFTABLES"? - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Original title was " http://www.distilnetworks.com/wp-content/themes/distil/images/logo.png", renamed to avoid issues on TOC here --Masem)
Request addition of company logo file for Distil Networks under Non-free content criteria. Logo used on /info/en/?search=Distil_Networks article.
[1] (changed from ref to direct link to avoid floating ref footer -Masem)
Tonybdistil ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks MASEM, but I get the following error: "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it." Tonybdistil ( talk) 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure about this image since I'm honestly not sure if this is a free image or a non-free image. I think it is free since someone took the picture, but I think it is non-free since it includes a logo. However, either way, I do not think its use as a non-free image since it's intended purpose is to identify the company, but a logo by itself would suffice to do that; and, if it is to identify the subject of the article, its current placement in the article is incorrect. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That Quentin died in 1999 does not mean that no photographer has ever taken a photo of him that the photographer will never be willing to release under a suitable license, for surely such a photographer must exist. The death of the subject of a photo does not de facto that only a fair use argument must be resorted to in order to represent them, as the copyright holder is not the person in the photograph but the photographer (when all of THOSE are dead, we will have the basis of a fair use argument!) . KDS4444 Talk 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image is probably used improperly. There is already a free image in the infobox in Chicago Police Department that helps identify the subject. For that reason, this image seems improperly used and unnecessary. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussion as original rationale no longer applies: all other referenced replacements in this discussion have been deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has a non-free rationale for D'Elidas, but it seem unnecessary per WP:NFCC#1 because File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg is also being used to provide essentially the same information. Granted the Commons image's licensing is questionable (I am going to ask for clarification at Commons VP), but for the time being it doesn't appear the the picture of the bottle of hot sauce is needed. There is also File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg on Commons which seems to be the essentially the same image and was uploaded by the same editor on about an hour later exactly the same day. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep but remove from all galleries. The image was removed from all articles except Jean Dubuffet. Unlike the other articles, in Jean Dubuffet it is not a member of a gallery and it is not clear that there is a free alternative. If a free image of this or another of Dubuffet's works becomes available, that image should be substituted on his article and this image deleted.-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The file violates WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in the articles in which contain the word 'painting': the picture is used in a gallery format and isn't critically discussed there. Pointing at the article about the painter should be enough, see WP:NFC#UUI §6. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 ( talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in the infobox of 2006 Cotton Bowl Classic. Image has nfur for use, but source link is dead so it's not clear if this is the sponsors official logo or the logo for this particular year and, therefore, satisfies No. 14 WP:NFC#UUI. From this webpage it looks like the logo was used for at least two different years. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:688 Club logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image seems simple enough to be licensed as "PD-USonly" and not as "non-free". - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus here. Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 4#File:Socceraustralia.png. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has non-free use rationale for Football Federation Australia#History, but it is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not the subject of sourced critical commentary with in the article. Logo itself is not specifically mentioned at all in article outside of its caption and is not really needed for the reader to understand the name change from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia". Usage is purely decorative which means it does not satisfy the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion so the image should be removed per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 5#File:Shichinin choushou promo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Image has a non-free use rationale for Shin SD Sengokuden Shichinin no Choushougun Hen, but use seem to be primarily decorative and not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The file was deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs) at FFD. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Unclear attribution - I can only find a Jennifer Osborne on Flickr who has a different picture of a Hitler cat, and this is marked as all-rights-reserved. The image used here appears to be a bad photoshop of a watermarked image on catsthatlooklikehitler.com.
Any potential non-free usage as "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is undermined by the fact that there is an entire website called "catthatlookslikehitler.com" - it would be possible to find a different, licence-friendly cat that also looks like Hitler. McGeddon ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
File has been deleted per speedy deletion criterion F5. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
These arms are not, and never have been, those of the "Barony of Blackhall" (which shows every sign of being a fabrication or hoax). They are the arms of a certain Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, to whom they were granted in 1995. Use in the article Barony of Blackhall is thus apparently not justifiable. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
File moved to Wikipedia Commons at C:File:WOR (AM) logo 2011-2013.jpg; in effect, the file local to Wikipedia has been deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Logo seems simple enough so that it doesn't need to be licensed as non-free, but rather as {{ PD-logo}}. If it is, however, really non-free, then I'm not sure if it's use in WOR (AM) satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:21April1967emblem.PNG for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Phoenix in popular culture and Georgios Papadopoulos. It has a non-free use rationale for each article but use does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either article. Use in "Phoenix in popular culture" also probably fails WP:NFCC#1 since there area a number of images at Commons which could be used to express the same idea. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on Phoenix in popular culture for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Both images are being used in Phoenix in popular culture. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is being used purely for "decorative" purposes. Use of images does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 since no context is being discussed and WP:NFCC#1 since there are a number of images on Commons which could be used for the same purpose. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in multiple articles had has a non-free rationale for each. The question is whether the logo of a national federation can be used or should be used in individual team articles. No. 17 of WP:UUI#NFC says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles, and that logo specific to the child entity should be used instead (ala WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg above). The national teams of many countries, however, do use the same logo for all age-levels of competition and both men and women's team. Most of the official pages linked to for these teams will all show the same logo being used, so I am wondering if there are any allowances to be made in such cases. I've removed some similar logos in the past per No. 17, so I would just like a little more clarification. I can re-add the logos if there use is actully considered acceptable. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#Images on 7 Medical Battalion Group for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Both images are being used in 7 Medical Battalion Group#Selection and training. Each image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it's not clear if either usage satisfies WP:NFCC#8. There is some discussion of the badges in the section and how they compare to another military badge, but none of the discussion is sourced. A "citation needed" can be added to the text, but not sure how that affects the use of the images. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 10#File:Spider-Man punching Sandman in Spider-Man 3.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the movie Spider-Man 3. It has a non-free use rationale for Spider-Man 3 and Sandman (Marvel Comics). Use might be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 for the movie's article since it is used in part of the article where special effects are discussed. Use does not seem acceptable at all for the character article since the image itself is not being discussed and is simply being used to illustrate (rather poorly in my opinion) that Thomas Haden Church played the character in the movie. Church is still alive so WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied and you can't really identify him at all from the image so the image is not needed at all per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
File listed at and deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 30#File:449px-Royal arms of Nepal.jpg. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is licensed as non-free and has a nfur for Kingdom of Nepal. Use in article seems primarily decorative and, therefore, does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Image also has no source information other than "The logo may be obtained from the Kingdom of Nepal" so I tagged it as {{ di-no source}}. This was reverted, however, by this edit. Isn't "The logo may be obtained from XXXXX" just the default text the template adds when no source is provided? Is that acceptable as a "source" for an image? - Marchjuly ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:75th-logo-bhm.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport#History. Image is not discussed at all and usage appears primarily decorative. I don't think the image is needed per WP:NFCC#8 for the reader to understand the sentence "In 2006 Birmingham International Airport celebrated its 75th year." - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Taftlogo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this image eligible for copyright protection in the US? George Ho ( talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#Images on Sandman (Marvel Comics) for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Two more images being used in Sandman (Marvel Comics). Neither image is the subject of any critical commentary within the article and each seems to have been added for decorative reasons.- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:Eddiebrocktthree.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a user-created montage of three separate images. No sources are given for the images other than Wikipedia articles. Seems to be an attempt to compare and contrast how the character appears in three different TV shows/films, but this is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself so not sure if this use satisfies WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:3-brand.svg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Three Ireland, Hutchison 3G and Three UK. Image has a non-free use rationale for each article and each company is stated to be subsidiary of the Hutchison Whampoa. Image appears to be shared by all three companies, but slightly different versions of the image can be found on the relevant official websites ( Three Ireland, Hutchinson 3G and Three UK). Does Nop. 17 of Wp:NFC#UUI apply here and should the website logs be used instead? - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:30th anniversary badge best.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in Fairbairn College#30th Anniversary. Not sure if use satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the only statement regarding the image is unsourced and simply says "A special lapel badge, seen alongside, was presented to every learner and educator to be worn during the anniversary year." - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 11#File:37 Armd Engr Sqn Noddy.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is licensed as non-free and is being used in 37 Armoured Engineer Squadron. No source is listed for the image and I tried searching online, but I was only able to find this webpage which does not look to be an official website of either the unit or the British Army. Is the above website OK to use as the source of the image or should the image be tagged as {{ di-no source}}.
Are military unit logos like this generally considered non-free or do they qualify as public domain? I've come across a few similar images which lack any source information other than to say, for example, "British Army" or "44 Regiment", etc. Sometimes I am able to find an official page where the image is used, but sometimes I am only able to find blogs or forum pages where the image is used. How should such images be dealt with per Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3d world atlas icon.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in the infobox 3D World Atlas. Image has a non-free rationale for the article but I don't see the relevance of it per WP:NFCC#8 since it' simply shows a globe and there is another image showing essentially the same thing in the infobox. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3Dfxlogo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in 3dfx Interactive#Early history. Image has a non-free use rationale for the article, but it is not the subject of any sourced commentary at all. The only purpose of the image seems to be to say the company's former logo used to be written with a capital "D". If this information is relevant, then it that text can be used to express this fact and that an image is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:3player logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Use seems unnecessary per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since File:3player.png is also being used in the infobox for 3Player - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in Wonderbra#History. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, and the claim is that it is relevant to the discussion about the "Canadian Lady Corsette Co. Ltd." The image itself, however, is not the subject of any sourced critical discussion and the connection between "Wonderbra" and "Canadian Lady" can being sufficiently explained using text. So, image is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 13#File:A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D.gif for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free logo used to illustrate former logo in History of S.C. Siracusa#From Palazzolo to Sport Club Siracusa. Usage does not seem appropriate per WP:NFCC#8 since logo is not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the section. The only (indirect) mention of the logo is "The team's colors were green and yellow." However, the logo has a nfur for A.C. Palazzolo A.S.D. which redirects to the current article. Maybe at one time there was a stand-alone article for the old team, but not sure how that logos current non-free usage. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 15#File:Liga I logo.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is used in Liga I#Sponsorship to illustrate logo introduced in 2010 when Bergenbier purchased the naming rights to the league. Image has non-free rationale for article, but it claims that the image is being used in the infobox which is not the case. There is some sourced discussion of Bergenbier's purchasing the rights in the article, but none of it seems to be about the image itself. Use, therefore, seems primarily decorative and not really needed for the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 since the current text is more than sufficient to explain things.
Finally, image is only being used in this article, so removing it will make it an orphan and subject to deletion. Should the image be removed, assuming this use does not satisfy the WP:NFCCP, and simply tagged with {{ di-orphaned fair use}} or should it go to WP:FFD for a full discussion? - Marchjuly ( talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:Mascot of UEFA Euro 2016.jpg for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Image is being used in Super Victor and UEFA Euro 2016#Mascot. It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I'm not sure if the image is needed in the tournament article per WP:NFCC#8. Essentially the same information and one of the sources used in the stand-alone article is simply being repeated in the tournament article. The tournament article includes a hatnote to the stand-alone article, so it doesn't seem that image is needed at all for the reader's understanding and that removing it will not be a detriment to that understanding. The nfur for the tournament article also claims that the image will be used at the top of the article, which is not the case, and I'm not sure if that can be fixed.
In addition to the aforementioned article, the images was also added to UEFA European Championship mascot, but I removed that per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c. Essentially the same information and source used in the stand-alone article was simply copied and pasted into the stand-alone article which is something I expect happens fairly often. Can a valid nfur be added for such a usage in a list article if commentary and a source are provided? - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:ABC RTV6 official.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in WRTV#WRTV to show former logo. Some basic discussion of the image itself in its caption, but no source is cited and image is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article itself. Usage seems primarily decorative and not essential to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No consensus established yet. Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 16#File:KCUV-FM.png for further discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Former radio station logo being used in KVOQ-FM#Former logo. Image is not subject of any sourced commentary within article so contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not clear. In addition, usage for decorative purposes in a gallery or a gallery-like way is not something allowed per WP:NFG. Image, however, might be too simple to be considered non-free and therefore may be a candidate for {{ PD-logo}} and {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure this one qualifies as a non-copyrightable textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
File is no longer transcluded in any non-article pages. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this copyrightable? If so, then the file violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The uploader of this image says that the depiction of the 18th century boat is from a 19th century book. This probably means the depiction is actually in the public domain (published before 1923/1946). -- 189.25.241.15 ( talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be consensus to remove it from every page except Croatian Football Federation. -- Brustopher ( talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It is the logo of the Croatian Football Federation, but it is also used in articles about teams (i.e. subdivisions of the federation). The picture also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus to remove from every page except FC Barcelona-- Brustopher ( talk) 12:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in FC Barcelona. SLBedit ( talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus to remove from all pages except Sporting Clube de Portugal. -- Brustopher ( talk) 12:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
It fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Sporting Clube de Portugal. SLBedit ( talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)