Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 23



File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Police Tent Splendour 2017 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by OpticalBloom241 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal which fails WP:NFCC (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC (WP:NFC). This image is currently not being used, and a bot has tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:F5 (WP:NFCC). This image has actually been deleted five times before (three times for WP:F5 reasons and twice for WP:F7 reasons) and it was re-uploaded each time except the last. The last time the image was deleted, the uploader asked that the file be restored so that it can be discussed at FFD; so, that's where things are right now. Since the image was last being used in a montage of images in the main infobox of New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal before it was last deleted, I'm assuming that's where the uploader wants its to be used and that's the non-free use that needs to be discussed.Non-free images are generally not allowed to be used in image galleries per WP:NFG, and the current image use in main infobox of the strip search scandal article is essentially a gallery of various images seen as representing this scandal. While this type of image use is sometimes found when all of the images are licensed as public domain or some other freely-licensed, it's pretty much never allowed for non-free images, especially when it the only one out of eight images being used that is licensed as non-free. Adding the image to the main infobox doesn't significantly improve the reader's understand of the scandal and omitting the image (currently the infobox has only six images) isn't detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way; so, there doesn't seem any way the justify the use of this file in the main infobox.The question then is whether the file could be moved to some other part of the article and its non-free use justified there. I don't see how this would be possible since there's no sourced critical commentary related to this particular image that I can find anywhere in the article. The file's non-free use rationale claims "The article makes reference to the use of tents used by NSW Police to conduct strip searches at certain music festivals. The file features an example of one one such tent being used at a music festival in 2017.", but that seems problematic both per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 because the word "tents" seems to actually be being used only once in the entire article (a sentence in the lead states "Inside these compounds, NSW Police have employed the use of structures such as ticket booths, tents, makeshift partitions and police vans to conduct both strip searches and less invasive general searches.") and the reader doesn't really need to see a non-free image to understand that strip searches may have been conducted in tents. The quality of the image also doesn't really add anything enclopedically since it's basically just shows people (some of which look like police officers) sitting or standing in some dimly lit tent. Omitting the image from not only the infobox but from the article as a whole, therefore, doesn't seem as if it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject matter in anyway. Furthermore, a non-free representative image isn't really needed when there are numerous other freely licensed representative images being used throughout the article. So, unless it can clearly be demonstrated that this particular image needs to be seen and the rationale for using it clearly meets the WP:NFCCP, I don't see any way for this image to be kept and used as the non-free use rationale is claiming it needs to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * An alternative free file has been located. Currently waiting on copyright holder to send through permission. Thank you OpticalBloom241 (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - as used, it fails WP:NFCC, and the note above about a free alterntaive means it also fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete textbook WP:NFCC violation. Decorative fair use, lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in.  -  F ASTILY   08:32, 26 August 2022 (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:Sheepshavermacosx.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 ⚡  08:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Sheepshavermacosx.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Alyssachanpc ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I'm not sure this fair use image is non-replaceable. Even though Mac OS is non-free software, some of its elements may be below the threshold of originality. For example, the Mac OS 9 splash screen only contains the classic Finder logo, which is likely simple enough to be in public domain. You have several seconds to take a screenshot before the more complex elements start to appear. Because the parent article is about the emulator, the screenshot does not need to show details about the OS. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think potentially we could dispense with the image of an older MacOS operating system and instead upload to commons some of the images here which are all released under a cc-by license (and show it running under linux and not OS X). That way we could show, for instance, a configuration or setup window with no copyright whatsoever. This doesn't replace the image exactly but it is a way to show SheepSaver working with a free image that is already out there on the internet. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2022 (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:Sabre cycle m.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, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Sabre cycle m.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Wolfkeeper ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Listed as Fair Use but 1. The article contains a detailed text description of the flow through the engine. 2. With the file size reduction made 7 years after uploading, the file is so small that important detail is difficult to make out, rendering it much less useful for the intended purpose. 3. It is possible to make a line drawing of the functional flow through the engine which is completely free. I don't think this meets our NFCC criteria. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - a free diagram to illustrate this could be made so fails WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (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.