Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 26

August 26[edit]

File:PowerPoint logo (tattoo on lower leg).jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo; WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. House Blaster^talk 03:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 2023 September 2. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:VojakNapoli.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Presumably resolved -FASTILY 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the image was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 12:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

relicensed as {{non-free biog pic}} — Ирука¹³ 20:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CarloBuscaglia.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Missing verifiable source. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the image was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 12:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a “simple photograph” taken about 90 years ago. Shouldn’t it be in the public domain and therefore also in the US?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it was published before 1989. — Ирука¹³ 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does have halftone, which suggests it was published before 1989. May have been published mid-century. Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SalvatoreGiuliano.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Missing verifiable source. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the image was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 12:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sepia tone leads me to believe this has been published at some point. Likely before the 1970s. Abzeronow (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FredJStrain.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the image was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken in 1930 so the author is dead. This is an old family photo uploaded by a family member. Shouldn't this be in the public domain per the file’s licensing note?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it published? When did the author die? — Ирука¹³ 11:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a photograph taken about 1930 by a family member. It was not "published" in the legal sense used in 2023. There is no "author" in the sense of a professional photographer. The subject, Fred J. Strain, died in 1949.

Once again this is an example of overreach by "editors" at Wikipedia. This was intended to be used with this article:

User:Historicalbios/Sandbox-FredStrain

However, you editors questioned everything in this article and ultimately deleted it. So none of the included images are needed.

PLEASE DELETE IT.

As an academic with an accredited PhD I know how to write, edit, and document, etc. I have moved on from active participation in creating content for wikipedia. I believe in the concept, but the administration of wikipedia has not properly trained "editors."

There are other images on the sandbox page linked above. PLEASE DELETE THEM ALL. As the contributor, I rescind my desire to contribute to wikipedia. Thank you. Drmissio (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Welfenstein castle circa 1905.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD. Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder and/or have been authorized to publish this file to Wikipedia, please follow these instructions to get the file restored. -FASTILY 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a few years shy of being 120 years old. Publication information would be needed to keep. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, please move to Category:Future copyright expiration and propose undeletion in, say, 2030. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be undeleted in 2026 and moved to Commons or moved to Commons, deleted, and put in the Undelete in 2026 category. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a family photograph from 1905. To what extent are we confident that the heir to the copyright is different from the uploader? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The heir differs from the uploader until proven otherwise. — Ирука¹³ 05:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Glou784:, please contact WP:VRT. I am inclined to AGF that the uploader is an heir to the photographer here. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Principale cheese region greece.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image has the quality of a scan. Uploader looks to have a history of image copyright abuse. Questionable licencing, though the map could be a public domain. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 13:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pushkin Statue Riga.JPG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Not a freely licensed file. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file. -FASTILY 21:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom of panorama does not extend to sculptures. — Ирука¹³ 15:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I will note that the image is used in Statue of Alexander Pushkin, Riga, where it appears to pass WP:FREER and would be suitable as a non-free file for the purpose of depicting that statue. Obviously, size would have to be reduced and all that, but I oppose outright deletion on these grounds. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dedication of Scottsville train station 1911.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the publication and the author are unknown. — Ирука¹³ 18:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we know this photo was taken in the US before 1928, isn’t it in the public domain regardless of its source?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was published if you don't know where? — Ирука¹³ 11:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I looked through the digital collections of the Wheatland Historical Association and didn't find it. The quality is too high to have been extracted from a contemporary newspaper. If it's unpublished, then it could still be in the public domain if the author died before 1953. The unknown provenance of the image makes it impossible to answer the question. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:44th rifle tanks.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author and source of the publication are unknown, {{PD-Ukraine}} and {{PD-Russia}} are not applicable. — Ирука¹³ 19:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calogero Vizzini face.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 19:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yukio - Deadpool 2.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 -FASTILY 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear shot of the character in the freely licensed trailer for The Wolverine (at the 2:16 mark). I believe an image extracted from the trailer could replace this non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not the same character. This picture is from Deadpool version of the character, portrayed by a different actress (Shioli Kutsuna, rather than Rila Fukushima) with a different appearance. If an image from the Wolverine version can be extracted, then both should be included as a gallery to demonstrate the different versions of the character. BD2412 T 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Deadpool 2 version more notable than the others? If we only need to illustrate the character as she appears in films, then there's no reason we should stick to the Deadpool 2 version unless the article has significant commentary about this particular incarnation. See WP:FREER for more information. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Deadpool 2 version has been confirmed as returning for Deadpool 3, which probably makes this (as a multi-film character) the most significant live adaptation. I suspect that the character also appeared in trailers, so if you can find an equivalent in a more free source (or source the current image to a trailer), that would be a reasonable outcome. BD2412 T 00:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: @Ixfd64: here is that exact shot at 1:24 in the Deadpool 2 official trailer. Good enough? BD2412 T 00:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Deadpool version is indeed more notable, then that could justify the current image's inclusion. However, there would also need to be more commentary about the character. Ixfd64 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is not a light switch for which it either automatically applies or does not apply. There are factors that must be weighed, including the commercial impact of the use of the material. Here, the image is a cropped still from a frame used in both the film and the commercials advertising it. The image (and other stills from the same scene) are already widely available on the web. The small, low resolution image that we have is hardly "poster quality". There is, therefore, virtually no conceivable commercial impact. Discussion of the film version of the character could indeed be expanded, and undoubtedly will, given future appearances of the character. BD2412 T 22:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' the Rila Fukushima character from The Wolverine is a central character to the film, whereas the Deadpool 2 character is a minor side character; as Deadpool 3 has not finished shooting, the prominence of the character is not ascertained as a multifilm character (any script leak could be fake, so cannot be reliably used to establish prominence). As a single film character, the Deadpool 2 character is a minor character. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't used in an article on the film, however, but on the character. The Deadpool 2 character (and reliably reported Deadpool 3 character) is a major iteration of the character, appearing in multiple scenes, having lines of dialogue, and engaging in actions that affect the trajectory of the story. Most notably, the character evinces qualities distinct from the Wolverine character, to the extent that sources have written about these distinctions. BD2412 T 14:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other metric I would note. The Wolverine made about $415 million at the box office, while Deadpool 2 made about $786 million—meaning that quite a few more people actually saw the Shioli Kutsuna iteration of the character. BD2412 T 01:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the same version of the character from The Wolverine, even though they are from the same franchise. Unless the nominator can provide a strong reason for deletion, I see no reason this image should not exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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