Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 7

December 7

File:(Free Wikipedia upload version)-Ambulance at scene of the Countdown Massacre, Dunedin, May 2021.png

Fails WP:NFCC8 & WP:NFCC1. Building still exists for a CC file to be produced. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 07:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this isn't the "scene" of incident but instead the exterior of where the attack took place. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 07:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't help the reader to understand anything beyond what a free alternative could. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elgar Heath.jpg

In the article for which the image was originally intended - and which has not been used for over 10 years - the event depicted in it is mentioned in one short sentence (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)). Also, illustrating anything other than covers with covers is not recommended WP:NFC#UUI.

In the second article, it performs the function of WP:LEADIMAGE, although it is mentioned.. in references! (WP:NFCC 8 & 1(text)) — Ирука¹³ 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the second article, this image, previously used on an album cover, illustrates a particularly appropriate 1971 performance of the subject overture, the focus of which is London, because Edward Heath is a public figure who served as a Member of Parliament from Greater London, shown here conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. I have not seen another photo that would more helpfully illustrate the article. The image satisfies all the other criteria, and as to criterion #1, No free content has been found that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says none of this. — Ирука¹³ 23:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in second article Cockaigne (In London Town), it illustrates exactly what is pictured and what the entire article is about. He is conducting the LSO in Cockaigne.

This0k (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TEDxBirgunj2016.jpeg

Unused, no foreseeable use. Possibly related to TEDxBirgunj. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FlightGear Flight Sim Bo 105 over Sint Marteen.png

This file is sourced to wiki.flightgear.org where it is listed as cc-by-sa-4.0. However, wiki.flightgear.org sources the file to the website imgur.com (http://i.imgur.com/ve0u4He.png), where there is no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am 1000% positive those files were uploaded by the person in question article wiki.flight.gear.org. They uploaded many more from the same station. It is very common to upload your own files to imgur and if you click on the file you can tell it is a hidden file meaning they uploaded it as only the creators themselves have access to files or uploads that are hidden and share the link to others to give them access to it. Considering their profile it's highly likely their image. Personally I recommend going to the User who is still kind of active as they posted in October for evidence of the permission.

This0k (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Ligue 2 logos

Problematic logo, only includes text and geometric forms, same problem with :

Keep They aren't problematic. This0k (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the logos are problematic? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said this because the logo only contains text, colour or geometric forms that are ineligible for copyright in the US, but I can get wrong. Otherwise, Paris FC, SC Bastia or SM Caen logos have the correct license. So, IMO, Annecy, Laval and Guingamp logos are ineligible for copyright. Thanks for informing me. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make the logos problematic.

For simple shapes, see this document. The first page contains two versions of the Car Credit City logo. The first one was found by the United States Copyright Office to be PD-textlogo, while the second one was found to be copyrighted. These logos may be of similar complexity as the copyrighted Car Credit City logo, so they are maybe not PD-textlogo in the US. There are no examples of logos at c:COM:TOO France, so it is unclear if they are copyrighted in France or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thank you for informing me, I will be serious next time. But for now, I let the others decide. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clàudia Pina Medina audio.mp3

Google Translate says that the site content has a {{CC-BY-ND}} license. — Ирука¹³ 17:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it very clearly doesn't. If you refer to the avis legal handily already linked at the file page, it says reuse is permitted for free and without permission as long as the reuse does not change the meaning or suggest it is officially endorsed by the parliament, and as long as there is attribution. That's attribution-only, and the same legal text that was used to create the Catalan government attribution template (Template:attribution-gencat on Commons). Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit.

"1. that its meaning is not altered or distorted."

No? — Ирука¹³ 23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

meaning is the operative word. Again, this is the exact same legal text used in the longstanding Commons license specific to this organisation. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that Google Translate is lying (which for some reason you didn't refute(or maybe my English didn't let me understand it)). Let's assume that the texts are identical (one has "CC0", the other doesn't). Only the sites are different. The Commons template is not applicable in this case. — Ирука¹³ 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You seem to acknowledge the legal text in both cases is the same but then suggest that it doesn’t apply? Just because you apparently don’t know the difference between changing something’s content and changing its meaning and now don’t want to drop it. If you’re admitting that you understand neither Catalan or English, I also don’t know why you’re so boldly insistent that your interpretation is correct when, once again, Wikimedia Commons has a whole thing for works created by the Catalan government. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate this sentence into English: "que no se n’alteri ni se’n desnaturalitzi el sentit". — Ирука¹³ 17:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That does not alter or distort the meaning." Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But let's be clear, the translation is not the issue. Your ability to interpret it is, as I already highlighted that the important part is meaning and you just ignored me. The text doesn't refer to altering the content (ND) at all. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True.

I didn't read until the words Creative Commons. That's also true. I wouldn't even bring it up for discussion.

But what the person below said is true also. — Ирука¹³ 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the legal text doesn't specify an English Wikipedia-approved CC tag, then the real problem is that English Wikipedia doesn't have the Catalan government Commons license. And the solution is that the file should be moved to Commons so that it can be properly license tagged there.

The Catalan government has always been descriptive, not prescriptive, of its CC licenses with the Commons agreement being "CC0 with attribution" (something that isn't in the regular licenses, hence Wikimedia Commons has a separate template). Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have nothing against you moving this and similar files to Commons before the end of this discussion. Only there might be someone like me who will notice the difference in the site addresses and the difference in the text. And everything will repeat itself. — Ирука¹³ 08:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'd love to, but you can't move files that are at XfD. Close this so we can all get on.

And don't worry, it won't repeat, because (the number of times I've had to repeat this, how on earth are you still claiming otherwise) there aren't any differences in the legal text and the applicable template. I.e. there's no file problem that others would look for, you have been inventing problems. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, yes.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding Move to Commons, you can move it there yourself. WP:FFD#Instructions for discussion participation — Ирука¹³ 00:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if it's possible to download an mp3 from English Wikipedia, my browser doesn't want to show me how. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says Aquestes limitacions es poden establir mitjançant l’ús de llicències Creative Commons. I assume that this means that the file is available under a Creative Commons licence, although it doesn't say which one. As most Creative Commons licences require you to refer to the licence in one way or another, it is not possible to use files under Creative Commons licences if the licence type and version number are unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:attribution-gencat on Commons would apply, given the publisher and having (for the final time) the same legal text as was used for that long before me. There was an mp3 issue on Commons at the time I uploaded it, or it would've gone there. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless it serves it's purpose and is only 5 seconds long. This0k (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]