Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 9



File:Portland Timbers (MLS) 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: Keep in Portland Timbers, remove from Portland Timbers U23s. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Portland Timbers (MLS) logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Portland Timbers and Portland Timbers U23s. A non-free use rationale is provided for each usage, but only the one for the main team article seems valid. Usage in the U23 team's article does not seem appropriate per No. 17 of WP:NFC since the team is "part of the development system" of the parent club. Suggest keep for "Portland Timbers" and remove for "Portland Timbers U23s". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-free logos in Erie SeaWolves

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep File:Erie SeaWolves new logo.png in Erie SeaWolves infobox only. — ξ xplicit  05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Erie SeaWolves original logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:Erie SeaWolves former logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Erie SeaWolves old logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Erie SeaWolves new logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Erie SeaWolves flag logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log)

Non-free logos being used in Erie SeaWolves. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but the rationales for 4 out of the 5 files ("File:Erie SeaWolves original logo.png", "File:Erie SeaWolves former logo.png", "File:Erie SeaWolves old logo.png" and "File:Erie SeaWolves flag logo.png") do not seem to be valid because the logos are not being used in the main infobox (as their respective rationales claim), but rather in a gallery of non-free logos which is generally not allowed per WP:NFG. Usage in galleries tends to be decorative and the logos themselves do not seem to be the subject of any sourced commentary so the context required by WP:NFCC is lacking. So, I suggest remove for these for logos unless they are somehow better incorporated into the text and any discussion of them is supported by reliable sources.

The remaining logo, "File:Erie SeaWolves new logo.png" is being used in the main infobox so NFCC#8 is satisfied; however, it is also being used again in the gallery of images which fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC since there's no reason to use the same non-free image twice and it lacks a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the second usage. Suggest keep for this particular logo, but only for use in the infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:York Capitals.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: Relisted at . Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:York Capitals.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by JaMikePA ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free former logo being used in Central Penn Capitals. A non-free use rationale, but this type of decorative usage in image galleries is generally not allowed per WP:NFG. The logo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary within the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC is lacking. Suggest remove if the NFCC#8 concern is not properly resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The image rationale is adjusted for its present use with the brand. —ADavidB 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rationale was changed, but that does not fix the NFCC#8 problem of decorative usage because the image is still being used in a gallery and is still itself not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the file out of the gallery, into the associated section of the article. —ADavidB 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: based on the changes described above —ADavidB 14:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:YorkCapitals.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at . Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:YorkCapitals.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by DMC511 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free logo being used in Central Penn Capitals and 2015 York Capitals season. A Non-free use rationale is provided for "Central Penn Capitals", but file is no longer being "as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC is now lacking since the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary and decorative usage in a gallery is typically not allowed per WP:NFG. Suggest remove from "Central Penn Capitals" unless the NFCC#8 issues are properly addressed.

Usage in "2015 York Capitals season" fails WP:NFCC since a separate, specific non-free use rationale is not provided and also (possibly) NFCC#8 since team logos are typically not allowed in individual season articles per Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC, unless it can be shown this was the first season the logo was actually used. So, suggest remove unless a valid non-free use rationale is provided and the possible NFCC#8 issues are resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The 2015 season was the first (and only) season this logo was used – the team used the previous entry's logo with prior seasons – but I'm not sure how that can best be 'shown' for the needed purpose here. —ADavidB 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A separate rationale is now in place for the season article. —ADavidB 10:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The image is removed from the gallery in the team article and placed instead within its related section. —ADavidB 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: based on the changes described above —ADavidB 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  09:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by GDD1000 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The below discussion was originally placed at Non-free content review and will soon be archived at. I've copied moved the original discussion from that board below, so it can be resolved here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Non-free image of a badge being used in the infobox of Carabiniers (6th Dragoon Guards). Website listed as source does not show the image at all and actually appears to indicate that another logo is used instead. Image actually appears to be photo taken, perhaps by uploader, and contains a watermark-like symbol in the lower-right corner. Uploader appears to have retired from editing quite some time ago, so not sure how to find original source for the image or how to verify image's copyright status. Finally, since the image appears to be some form of heraldry, I am wondering if it even satisfies WP:NFCC. Isn't it possible to create free equivalents of "heraldry-like" images? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The image does not come from the website given as source because the little logo in the right corner indicates this is an image from an hosting services used for many eBay lots. This image is not covered by crown copyright. As a photo of a 3D cap badge we require the permission of the author and this is clearly missing and unlikely to be found, so it should be nominated for deletion If all that is required is a logo then a drawing of the badge elements would be ok as the regiment only existed until 1922 unless you can find an existing image. The commons illustration workshop might make one. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The uploader has not retired; the image was uploaded by one of the alternative accounts of User:SonofSetanta, who was active as recently as today. The following deletion discussions for other uploads of his may be relevant:
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:UDR Service Medals.JPG
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:44acmob.jpg
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Badge Comparison sketch.jpg
 * Files for deletion/2013 July 18
 * Files for deletion/2013 July 18
 * In short, most uploads of his depicting military medals, badges, and insignia have been deleted on copyright grounds, but in at least one can he was able to secure the necessary permissions. Perhaps this is another such case.

—Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  for your replies. I did not realize that the original uploader was now editing under a different name. Since the image is licensed as non-free, I don't believe it requires "permission" to be used, does it? However, there is still the issues of WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. As long as the copyright status of the image can be verified and that no free-equivalent can possibly be made, the image can be licensed as non-free, right?


 * Finally, even if the above is resolved, there is also possibly an issue regarding WP:NFCC. The non-free use rationale states "There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: 'All regiments of the British army use different cap badges. This one is peculiar to the 6th Carabiniers.'" yet there is no such sourced discussion of the image at all within the article itself. Since the image is being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the unit, it's possible that such a generic statement is sufficient enough to establish the contextual significance of the image, but I'm not sure. -Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is highly unlikely the uploader took the original photo but we can ask. As a 3D image it absolutely does require permission of the photographer and it immediately fails WP:NFCC because anyone with such a badge, or acces to one, can take a photo and release it freely. As I said, if it were a 2D logo we could probably use it as non-free for which we don't require permission. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * NFCC#1 is complicated here. For the image for this section lead - a military group that was disbanded nearly a century ago - it is likely that the design itself was done well before 1922, and thus the design is public domain; this photograph on the other hand is likely copyrighted to whomever the photographer is, so we should be able to expect a free image... but, we also are talking about a artifact that a limited number of people would have had and that unlikely any of those people are surviving today (again, nearly a century). And as such, unless we are fully aware of a museum or other collection that holds one of these badges on public display, I don't think we can have expectation that a free image could be made (that is, someone to take and give a free photograph to use).
 * Note that, say in the case of the 1962 piece that has been deleted, the base piece was likely still copyrighted so even though a free photograph could be taken, that image would still be considered a non-free derivative work. But then the issue of finding a badge to take a photograph and get at least a free photo of a copyrighted work (as opposed to a copyrighted photo of a copyrighted work) becomes much more likely. --M ASEM (t) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't we at the very least need to know where the photo came from so that its copyright status can be verified if the image is to be licensed as non-free? The source given for the image apparently is not really the "source" of the photo. The logo being used on that page looks quite different and it's not even clear if the two units are one and the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We do need the source or origin of the photo as to be able to assess whether it could be marked free (knowing the ID of the photographer) or for non-free (to demonstrated previous publication). --M ASEM (t) 05:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded the image and many others like it. There was a time when I cared about things like this but after the witch hunt of last year, which proved beyond doubt that the vast majority of the images I have provided were genuine and correctly uploaded, I gave up. My reason for that is simple: one goes to a lot of trouble to find free images, even donating a substantial amount of my own photographs, only to have them questioned by people who don't know anything about the subject matter. I was repeatedly called a liar by several members over images of which I could produce, not only the original of but also, the negatives. This didn't stop the persecution however so I just don't bother with images anymore or the fact that over zealous editors call my reputation into question. So fill your boots - I don't care. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'll repeat two of the previously stated reasons: a) because this is a photo of a 3D item it requires a free licence from the photographer even though the design of the badge is older than 1922, it clearly fails Commons Illustration workshop could make a badge drawing without copyright issues. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:University of London.svg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Since the discussion has been open for over 9 months now, it is doubtful that it will become any clearer with more time. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:University of London.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Kashmiri ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:UofLondon logo.png([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

Leftover from Non-free content review. Original discussion has been moved here, seen below. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC) This is marked as a non-free, non-replaceable logo. However, it is an armorial shield, not a logo. It is replaceable with a free graphic based on the blazon from the University's 1838 grant of arms. http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html (unfortunately the image at that page is too low a resolution to read) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That graphic and the current logo look almost identical, albeit not completely so (the book is narrower in the older). Unfortunately I can't find any larger version of that older logo. I also notice that the current image is used in three pages but has a NFUR only for one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found a black-and-white one whose original is public domain, but not a colour one. (I think I used the wrong deletion process here. I should have used delayed speedy deletion as it is certainly old enough to be replaceable with a public domain version. As Jo-Jo already replied, I guess it is too late to switch to delayed-speedy.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the graphics in question is to depict what is effectively being used as LU's logotype, not some historical version. As the image uploader, I was not sure whether the graphics was in public domain (unlike the historical drawing, which has narrower arms, etc.), hence I tagged it as fair use. I tend to believe that there was a degree of creativity put in creating the current offical logo based on the historical coat of arms. Whether it crossed the threshold of originality, I don't know. It is thought that the threshold is lower in the UK than in the US, hence the image might be protected. But no, this current logotype cannot be replaced by a historical coat of arms: the two are different things, both materially and functionally. Regards,  kashmiri TALK  19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should also review the use of File:UofLondon logo.png.
 * I agree with you that the vector art may cross the threshold of originality so you were right to tag it as fair use.
 * However I do not agree that because the University currently uses that particular version, that we need to display that particular version in Wikipedia's article about the university. It is shown in the infobox as a coat of arms, and for most old universities, we use an old or re-drawn coat of arms, not a modern non-free version.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree re. vector art vs. raster art. Copyright protection extends to the work of art irrespective of what file format it has been rendered in.
 * I also quickly scanned Oxford University, University of Cambridge, and University of Sheffield - and did not see us using anything else than the official coat of arms. Actually, I am not even sure there would be different versions of the official coat of arms.
 * Of interest, an old coat of arms does not mean it is in public domain in the UK - see here: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/about/arms.
 * Regards,  kashmiri TALK  20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a good question (and a very useful link). It is possible that Sheffield meant that it is restricted by trademark law or heraldic law, or they meant that their own coat of arms artwork is restricted by copyright. None of which would affect most educational uses of a free version of Sheffield's or London's shield
 * As a counter-example, we have this free shield on Commons, that is used on numerous Wikipedia articles: File:Cambridge shield.png
 * There is a long article about this at Commons:Coats of arms
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To demonstrate that the official shield has been redrawn many times, I just found one on an official UL document in a fuzzy grayscale scan that is probably free (pre-1890 original) and has the same heraldic elements as the logo, but a different shaped book. It is on the first page of this large (13 MB) PDF http://www.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/resources/gr.pt1.pdf
 * Better to ask an artist to draw a fresh one (such as at Graphics Lab)
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The blazon for the arms is "Argent the Cross of Saint George Thereon the Union Rose Irradiated and Ensigned with the Imperial Crown Proper A Chief Azure Thereon an open Book also Proper Clasps Gold". With this, a heraldic artist should be able to draw a new version. If the idea is to depict the arms rather then the specific logo (which appears to be the case), this should be sufficient. Robminchin (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MedalPHQ.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:MedalPHQ.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by ColinBoylett ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. These 1990 cards are copyright until 2041 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wggrace.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Wggrace.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by ColinBoylett ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. This 1973 card is copyright until 2024 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. I've uploaded a new better quality image with a suitable non-free rationale. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Roywedd86PHQ.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Roywedd86PHQ.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by ColinBoylett ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: unfortunately the first PHQ cards are covered by crown copyright lasts for 50 years. These 1986 cards are copyright until 2036 - claimed as freely licenced which is not possible for such works. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Corporater logo.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Corporater logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Fsweep ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

See. Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.