Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 21



File:Warrior19.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: remove from Norsefire. — ξ xplicit  02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Warrior19.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by P-Chan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Norsefire and V for Vendetta. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but I don't think the usage in "Norsefire" meets WP:NFCC according to WP:NFC. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion of the comic "Warrior" in the movie's article, but nothing in "Norsefire" requires a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 21 January 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:Evgeny Kochergin.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 ⚡  04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Evgeny Kochergin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Кориоланыч ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This file is a clear WP:NFCC/WP:NFC violation since the subject is still alive. However, rather than tagging it for speedy deletion, I am bringing it here for discussion due to what is listed as its source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Виталий_Стариков,_Анна_Шатилова,_Евгений_Кочергин.JPG. This is a page on the Russian Wikipedia. On that page, it looks like this file has some sort of GFDL free-release license. Can that be verifiably transferred over here? Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ....Or with the fact that it has a GDFL license on the Russian Wikipedia, and if it is not a copyright violation, can it be moved to Commons? Steel1943  (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Google Translate implies that the author is claimed to be LTch, but the uploader is listed as being Флагман социологии, so maybe the uploader claims that the uploader is not the author. I think that we need help from a Russian-speaking person who can determine if the file is missing evidence of permission on Russian Wikipedia, and if so, tag it as such there. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 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:AshesToAshes3.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: remove from Pierrot. — ξ xplicit  02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:AshesToAshes3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ian Rose ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song) and Pierrot. File has a non-free usage rationale for each usage but only its usage in the stand-alone article about the song "Ashes to Ashes" seems appropriate per WP:NFCC. Usage in "Pierrot" seems decorative and I don't think it is needed. There are 30 other images being used in the article depicting what a "Pierrot" looks like and so a non-free image is not needed for that. Bowie is mentioned several times in the article, but not sure what is written is sufficient for using the non-free cover art, especially when a wikilink to the stand-alone article where the image can be seen is also provided. So, I think the image should be kept in "Ashes to Ashes" and removed from "Pierrot". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no argument with Marchjuly's proposal -- I uploaded it for use in the song/single article, nothing more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bowie's costume is a unique contribution to the Pierrot iconography (you'll not find another like it among all the other images): therefore, its use. But if you think it poses a dangerous violation of copyright, please remove it.  Thank you.  Beebuk 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the cover down the page so now it's next to the description. Maybe you didn't know that it was already mentioned in the text. It's helpful to see what the words are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.140.252 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 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:Priyanksoni.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 ⚡  04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Priyanksoni.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Priyanksoni9713 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is unencyclopedic. Image page is being used as a fake article about a non-notable person. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 07:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it being used on any article (fake or otherwise). This seems to be the user's selfie.  Appropriate for use on his user page if he is going to use it.  But if it isn't going to be used, then the image should be deleted as it would not be of use otherwise. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 24 January 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:Wikiversity-logo-41px.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: procedural close. The deletion tab of this file specifically states: "Images are usually locally uploaded and protected here at the English Wikipedia since they are used in an interface message or in some widely used template. Don't delete such images, not even if it has a backup copy on Commons." I am not allowed to delete this image. — ξ xplicit  02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by David Levy ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OK, this is a bit of a "test case" as far as deletion goes. It is currently fully protected and cascade protected because it's used on the main page. However, the Commons version is not only identical but also fully protected and cascade protected because it's widely used in a number of projects, including enwiki (there is a bot that automatically cascade-protects Commons images used on homepages of large wikis). Plus, the licensing of the Commons version is the actually correct one. I am wondering, in that light is this local copy still needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We should be careful when deleting logos like this since some files appear in MediaWiki configuration files. For example, according to mw:Manual:LocalSettings.php, one copy of Wikipedia's logo should appear in a configuration file. I don't know if this file appears in a configuration file or not, and I don't know how to find out. If the file appears in a configuration file, then the configuration file is likely to break if the file is deleted as a Commons dupe, so any deletions and redirections of this file should be synchronised with updates to all relevant configuration files. If we can't figure out if there are configuration files which need to be updated, then this is a good reason to keep the file for the moment.
 * The file on Wikipedia has SHA1  while the one on Commons has , so the files are not identical, although the difference might not be something visible. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. I need to read up on these SHA1 hashes. and  are to my understanding the lists of configuration files in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some pages in the MediaWiki namespace also work as 'configuration files'. For example, MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js contains some filenames. I don't know if there are additional configuration files apart from the MediaWiki namespace and the files you mentioned. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked, neither our MediaWiki namespace nor any of the configuration files contain a file like this one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 21 January 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.