File talk:BHS - high school diploma.tif

Deletion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image.

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Such a work is never formally published, so according to US copyright law, it would only fall out of copyright 120 years after creation. Thus any diploma in the public domain will be as old as dirt and not worth the whole purpose of demonstrating what a diploma looks like. I've dealt with Stefan2 several times in the past. He loves to be 'trigger-happy' in nominating files for deletion, and half of the time he's wrong to do so. To be honest, his work has become an annoyance to me and likely many others. Stefan, feel free to reply.--ɱ (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable by for example a diploma created by the government of Florida, by a diploma created by the government of California or by text. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What tag would you use? I had believed only works by the US federal government were free, not state or local governments. As well, which high schools are run directly by a state government? None in New York, I can tell you that for sure. And replaceable by text? Please don't use that as an excuse, I've been through that argument before.--ɱ (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two states put all of their works in the public domain: {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}}. This also applies to subdivisions under those two states. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it. I know for a fact that a high school diploma is not free because it is not published by the federal government. My only question is whether or not a signed diploma makes it possible to be given a cc-by-sa 2.0 license or something similar. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image is replaceable, as we have the public-domain File:Mihail Sorbul High School Diploma.jpg on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

@Diannaa: I find it very rude that a decision was made without waiting for me to respond; this happens far too often. Wikipedia is about consensus, and if you just go ahead and make a decision before consensus is reached, not only is it an insult to those fighting to stop the change, but it shows how little you care for Wikipedia's values, guidelines, and policies, and makes them seem worthless.

I believe that you can't even compare File:Mihail Sorbul High School Diploma.jpg to File:BHS - high school diploma.tif in terms of usefulness: one is a 100-year-old diploma from Romania; the other is not even a year old and from the United States, and also exemplifying the Regents Diploma, multiplying its usefulness far past that long-gone diploma. In response to Stefan2: please show me where that law is, especially that it applies to local governments and school districts. I'm skeptical because of the few California HS articles that have logos, none use the PD argument; if that argument were true, I would expect to see it in use and logos on nearly every page!--ɱ (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file fails NFCC #1: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Your best course of action if you disagree is to open a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The deleting administrator was User:Ronhjones. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing along the blame? No "I'm sorry, that was a poor action, I'll try to tell the real closing administrator to not do that for the future" or even any argument for doing that? This is why the number of editors here are declining; nobody gives a () about anyone else; whether it be respect or even mere consideration. Also, the file doesn't fail NFCC 1. I can't use File:Mihail Sorbul High School Diploma.jpg to exemplify a Regents diploma, a US diploma, or a contemporary diploma, while I could use File:BHS - high school diploma.tif to exemplify any of those. I will be happy to open a deletion review, although I'm positive it's hounded by deletionists with excuses just like I've had to deal with.--ɱ (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2, Diannaa, and Ɱ: If you want a US high school diploma, then just look at commons, a brief search found File:Benjamin Franklin High School - 1934.jpg, and I also found this free image File:High School Diploma (2554514719).jpg on Flickr (and moved to commons). There are probably more free images - they just need tracking down. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: I can't be sure that you're completely wrong, but I am sure that both of those files should be deleted. The first was claimed to be created by the uploader. Unless the uploader is over 90 years old and just happens to be a professional calligrapher, I rather doubt that he created it. The second was licensed as CC on Flickr, but the diploma is still copyrighted, making it a derivative work of a non-free subject, and thus it is a non-free image--ɱ (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: First one is 1934 - so we go back to the old US copyright of that era. So the copyright would need to be claimed and renewed within 28 years of publication - it's been on commons for 5 years and we all know how picky they are there (and I'm also a commons admin!). No.2 - well there is a hint of a picture at the top, I'll chop off the top 200 pixels and then it's just {{PD-text}} for the text {{PD-signature}} for the signatures and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} for the overall photo. As I said, I only had a brief search, if I can find 2 so quick, there must be more out there to find. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: Well the copyright tag is still incorrect for the first photo, even if it is free. As for the second photo, what makes this one PD-simple and PS-signature and not File:BHS - high school diploma.tif?--ɱ (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: The copyright tag on No.1 is good for the whole scan of the item, it could do with something like {{PD-Pre1964}} for the content. File:BHS - high school diploma.tif has four distinct logos on it - that's brings in the copyright. You may also note that the image was a colossal, oversized, 22,536,192 pixels (12 million is the limit for correct display in Wikipedia), when we have a guideline of 100,000 pixels for fair use images - if it had been left then "Theo's little bot" would have reduced it from 5,376 × 4,192 to 358 x 279 pixels - such items never look good when reduced for fair use. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Although I said {{PD-simple}} above, note that the commons image has used c:Template:PD-text - commons has named their templates a little different to en-wiki). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me the only valid reason for deleting the file is because of three seals, one of which has a generic atom symbol, another with the public domain New York State seal, and the third with a small Briarcliff High school logo.--ɱ (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]