Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 22



File:Suzi Quatro In the Spotlight Deluxe Edition album cover.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Suzi Quatro In the Spotlight Deluxe Edition album cover.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Peter.loader ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Very similar to standard cover, fails WP:NFCC. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The standard original album cover File:Suzi Quatro In the Spotlight album cover.jpg, has a different colour scheme and meaning from this box set one.

The original album contains only the "In the Spotlight" CD so its cover shows an yellow spotlight, represented by an yellow circle on a brightly-lit orange background. It has no reference to the "In the Dark" CD. "In the Dark" is only available in the box set (which was released after the original album).

On the other hand, the box set cover shows a white spotlight shining through the darkness (represented by a black background). So it refers to both CDs in the box set: both to "In the Spotlight" and to "In the Dark".

The "In the Dark" CD is described as part of the In the Spotlight article, as is the "In the Spotlight" CD. Omitting either cover would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic. So the file does not fail WP:NFCC and should be kept —Peter Loader (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, the image is frankly so much like the one at the top of the article, bar a bit of branding, that it adds hardly anything to the article; actually it even looks repetitive, which is detrimental. But for fair-use, it must clearly and definitely add something significant for the (first-time) reader, which it does not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2020 (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:Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.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: relisted on. F ASTILY  05:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * 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:WickesLogo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:WickesLogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Cloudbound ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused logo superceded by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no need for redundant and outdated images like this. I'm sorry, if this is too harsh. BTW, this is unused. this might be ugly 06:06, 27 May 2020 (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:Carboniferous geography.jpeg

 * 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: speedy delete. Uploader agreed deletion Reh  man  06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Carboniferous geography.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by SMB99thx ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I'm not sure if this is copyrighted, since it was not stated in the author's about page. this might be ugly 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and reconstruct using a free base map (something like File:The World of the Carboniferous-Permian boundary.svg, for instance) and add a vector box ... the image is fuzzy, doesn't say a lot, and with flaky status too, we'd be better off without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks that based on other discussions on this page, it's not going to get the attention i wanted, which is talking about the copyright status of the file. And, there is a better alternative you mentioned. I just edited the Permian page to reflect geography of the Earth at that time better. I request WP:CSD (BTW, i should not make Wikipedians stressed since i have made two CSDs already!) this might be ugly 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Take back at my previous request, this situation really confuses me. this might be ugly 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this image on Wikipedia is either a copyright violation of FossilGroveGlasgow.org's original work or a copyright violation of FossilGroveGlasgow.org's derivative work of an unknown original work. I see no convincing evidence given in the "fair use rationale" for this image that does not also apply to most images on the internet or most images in books. Creators of copyright material have maximum rights to their material by default that they can then license by explicitly granting a licence to other people. If no licence is given or found, it means the photo should be assumed to be copyright and should not be copied. This image could be replaced with a new original work created by a Wikipedia editor, uploaded with e.g. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licence. Such a map does not have to be a derivative of a map by Scotese or Blakey because their maps are not the only available facts, their maps are only their interpretations of the evidence that they have chosen to process. It would be a lot of work to create a new map but not impossible. I think that "fair use" does not allow exemptions based on "it would be a lot of work to produce an original image, so to save effort let's be lazy and use a copyright image". SMB99thx, you included  the "Non-free 2D art" template in the licensing section of this image's file description page. This template gives the text "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.". You have not used the image for the purposes listed in that template. GeoWriter (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. I requested it myself, after waiting for a needed information about this file. I get it, it's clearly a copyright violation and i was unsure about it when i first uploaded this file. And i've tried to find a matching template for this file to be used, but i cannot find it. So, i used a template i considered similar to what i would need to upload this file. So, this is why i can't find the appropriate template that i should use. As such, this is enough to conclude this discussion. Thank you, it's clear that i should have made the image myself and not be lazy about it. I should not uploaded this, but i still don't have enough knowledge about how copyright violation works on ambiguous works. As such, i apologize for what i've done. I'll do my best to learn from my past mistakes and going forward to become a good editor. I will not repeat these mistakes again. this might be ugly 02:50, 26 May 2020 (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.