Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 14



File:Tart as a double entendre.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 ⚡  10:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Tart as a double entendre.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by 718 Bot ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

In response to Special:Diff/1108845526 during the undeletion request, I'm opening an FfD for this file. I originally removed the image, along with the entire section pertaining to it, from the Penny Arcade article a while back, as the entire section was lacking secondary sourcing. That's been resolved, and the image was restored in order to be put back as well. However, I removed the image under a separate rationale: What this image represents is a piece of artwork that was subject to a cease and desist for copyright violation. That C&D was honored by the artist, so it never went to court. But it seems a strain of NFCC, which holds a goal of protecting Wikipedia from legal claims, for us to then rehost the content. Beyond that, I don't believe NFCC #8 is really met. This image is pertinent to a two paragraph controversy where it certainly holds context. However, it's omission will not be a detriment to a reader's understanding of the overarching topic, Penny Arcade. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC) I do wonder if I were to contact Penny Arcade if they might release just this comic under CC-BY-SA since it is of historical interest and not being hosted by them. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral I will state that, to me, the issues are in some ways similar to the image used in Streisand effect (though in that case, at least, the image is free-use IIRC, the similarity being that a cease and desist was raised). In so far as that is concerned, there are numerous mirrors of this image on the internet (dozens were available immediately upon this comic being pulled), so any idea that Wikipedia would be any more open to litigation over the image than any other random webhost is a bit far-fetched I think. I do think ferret raises a reasonable fair-use concern, and I actually am not sure what the legal implications are. Hopefully others can fill in the gaps here, as with the comic being officially pulled, I wonder how that affects any argument of depriving the "owner" of their monopoly of the image and how that washes with our NFCC policy.
 * Keep, my discussion with below has convinced me this image adds far more value to the reader than I initially realized. Legal concerns aren't really a good reason to delete an image, especially one that has been on the project for nearly 15 years. If there were a legal concern, Wikimedia would have done something via an office action, and could still do something that way if they were contacted in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Legal concerns aren't a good reason to delete an image? It's not just a concern. It's not even just a guideline. It's a policy: WP:COPYVIO, WP:NFCC. The second bullet of WP:NFCC makes it clear that limiting legal exposure is the goal of the overall policy. -- ferret (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Our use of the image qualifies as fair-use. If Wikimedia had a legal concern with this specific image they are more than capable of initiating an WP:OFFICEACTION and forcing removal. But there is no legal concern here that we are capable of adjudicating better than the lawyers that work for the project. I think raising the spectre of legal concerns is a red herring that should hold no weight when this discussion is closed. The image provides context for our readers that article prose alone do not, and IMO meets the NFCC requirements. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. Yhe particular controversy is a small part of the article, and the image is not really needed to understand that they were given a C&D over the use of copyrighted characters and chose not to fight it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it provides context to the reader as to why American Greetings may have felt compelled to issue the C&D more than the article text alone could properly convey. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the lack of an image is not any real impediment to understanding of what happened. Whpq (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the current article text simply states they received a C&D for using two AG characters. The image leaves it to the reader to discern the BDSM undertones of the use Penny Arcade engaged in, which runs counter to the image AM sells for their products. These are things the article text can't really convey. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article was about the C&D specifically, maybe you could claim that NFCC #8 is met. But no, this is two small paragraphs in a much larger topic. -- ferret (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article makes no mention of BDSM undertones as the reason why American Greetings issued the C&D, so the image actually isn't supporting anything in the article. Even if it did, I remain unconvinced this is needed to understand this topic, which is Penny Arcade, which is to say I more or less agree with ferret's reasoning above as well. Whpq (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting NFCC #8: As the article does not go into detail on the BDSM undertones in article prose, the image provides context to our readers on what types of material Penny Arcade has produced, and in this specific instance, what prompted the C&D from AM. Without the image (without the context it provides) a reader is left uncertain about why Penny Arcade received a C&D or what about the strip was so disagreeable to prompt a legal threat. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that the nature of the strip was the reason for the legal action is pure, unadulterated WP:SYNTH. We are absolutely not in the business of framing ambiguous situations to seem more lurid like a clickbait site. Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, which is why I said the image adds context for the reader since the article does not say that. A picture is worth a thousand words, etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article does not say it means that there is no context for the use of this image. Your argument is actually supporting the removal of the image. Whpq (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this opposite day or something? My argument does no such thing unless you misunderstand words. The context is the discussion of the C&D and the fact that it was from AM. The image provides the reader with a deeper understanding of the issue. I can't state it any more plainly than that. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I’m not seeing anything in the article that says “the C&D was because it looked like this”, just that there was a C&D; that makes keeping this image is more, not less confusing. It also illustrates a low-importance part of the comic and its history. If you were going to use a fair use image in the article it should be something that genuinely shows what the comic is about i.e. the main characters, an example panel etc. Dronebogus (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad it only took us fifteen years to figure out this image doesn't belong here. So grateful. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of stuff escapes notice, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. Whpq (talk) 17:11, 14 September 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:Cithare d&

 * 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 ⚡  13:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Cithare d& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Balalaika 500 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No evidence medal design isn’t copyrighted. Dronebogus (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 14 September 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:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.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 ⚡  14:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Zooted09 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 14 September 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:BillHybelsPhoto.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 ⚡  14:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:BillHybelsPhoto.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Phylip ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:NickyGumbel.jpg
<div class="archived 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 ⚡  14:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:NickyGumbel.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Phylip ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Milo chapel carms.jpg
<div class="archived 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 ⚡  14:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Milo chapel carms.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Phylip ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Small, low-res, no metadata, uploads of varying sizes. Doubtful own work. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Birhana2.JPG
<div class="archived 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 ⚡  15:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Birhana2.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Uppalrajesh ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Scanned image. Source needed. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 13:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:BBC Queen Elizabeth II death announcement.webm
<div class="archived 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 as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:BBC Queen Elizabeth II death announcement.webm">File:BBC Queen Elizabeth II death announcement.webm ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by XxLuckyCxX ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

May fail WP:NFCC #3b. A basically full-length upload of a non-free video from source video is not appropriate as fair use because it can interfere with BBC's commercial opportunity. It should be linked to the source video as external video instead, or if appropriate, cut down only to important parts. Also consider reviewing it if it fits under WP:NFCC. Stylez995 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, Not to take any stance but I'm not sure if an external link to that video would considerably be acceptable per se. However, I understand that this is considerably important material with how this announcement was addressed to the masses when it was on television. 20chances (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from uploader In regards to "interfering with the BBC's commercial opportunity", the BBC (and in this instance more specifically, the News division) is publicly funded through the UK's TV Licence scheme. There are no commercial opportunities for the BBC bar the corporation's Studios division, which is not relevant in this case as that is separate from the News division.
 * In regards to NFCC#3b, I'd be happy to reupload the file with just the first portion of the video (i.e. just the announcement and no national anthem) if that would solve things.
 * And in regards to NFCC#8, and as per 20chances, I'd like to believe that it is of significance. It is estimated that at least 11.4 million people, 60% of the British viewing public, viewed the statement at the time of the Queen's death.
 * I'd be happy to work and edit anything that allows the file to stay active :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think this meets NFCC #8 or even #1. The first half of the video consists of Huw Edwards reading a statement from the royal family, the statement is reproduced in the article and the article says that Huw Edwards read it on air, so having a video of him reading it doesn't add much beyond that. And the second half of the video consists of the national anthem being played, which doesn't add much and could easily be replaced with a note saying that the national anthem was played. The video itself is not the subject of critical commentary in the article, or indeed any commentary beyond a note that Huw Edwards read out that statement.  Hut 8.5  07:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment from uploader Have submitted a Db-author request for the file as the article has been replaced with an external video link to the original YouTube video XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:3DMM screenshot.png
<div class="archived 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 ⚡  01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:3DMM screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by VerifiedCactus ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

3D Movie Maker is now available under a free license. We should be able to create a free screenshot now. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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:Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground Historic Highway Marker.jpg
<div class="archived 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 as F8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  06:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground Historic Highway Marker.jpg">File:Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground Historic Highway Marker.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by 2nd ABG ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

possible derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for text/2D works in the US  F ASTILY   22:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a photo that I took with my phone camera. I don't understand why it should be deleted. 2nd ABG (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a derivative work of the depicted text Dronebogus (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a public sign installed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to educate the public and bring attention to the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground. 2nd ABG (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the content of the sign is copyrighted. The mere fact it's been erected in public, or to bring something to people's attention, doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. Content created by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources isn't automatically free of copyright (note the same text is found on their website here with a copyright notice). If the content of the sign is copyrighted then your picture is also copyrighted because it includes the sign.  Hut 8.5  12:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you be deleting all of the images on Wikipedia that depict historic highway markers? The Wikipedia page of the Hebrew Cemetery that is right across the street from the Shockoe Hill African Burying ground has an image of their historic highway marker on it. Hebrew Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia)
 * I co-authored the text on the sign. I can contact VDHR directly concerning it. 2nd ABG (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have forwarded this discussion to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for their assistance. 2nd ABG (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sign itself does not indicate that it is copyrighted. https://www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=661702 The image of the sign has been used in numerous news articles. 2nd ABG (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Copyright exists automatically unless you explicitly disclaim it, so the fact that the sign doesn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and it only accepts content which is available under the CC-BY-SA licence or is in the public domain. This is stricter than the law actually allows, which may well be why news organisations (which don't operate according to that standard) are able to use it. Or perhaps they just don't care, but that's not much of a reason to allow it here. If you want to get the copyright holder's permission to use it then you should read Requesting copyright permission, in particular note that a statement that the image can be used on Wikipedia or that it can be used for educational purposes is not enough. And there may be other images like this one which need to be deleted as well.  Hut 8.5  18:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have written back to DHR and have asked that they complete your permission form and email it to the address provided. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Virginia Department of Historic Resources just sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. They stated that "The text of this marker is not copyrighted, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has no problem with this photo being used on Wikipedia." 2nd ABG (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The manager of the Historical Highway Marker Program at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources informed me that the content of the marker is not copyrighted, and said it is fine to use the photo on Wikipedia. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you will receive written permission soon. 2nd ABG (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.