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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riccarton Racecourse Branch map.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthew25187 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Only used in a userspace gallery, contrary to WP:NOTWEBHOST. Unlikely to be useful elsewhere. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say it's worth keeping. The Riccarton Racecourse has a rather interesting history, and horse racing was so popular in New Zealand at some point that it was worth building this branch railway. So once some history gets added to the article, the map would be a useful addition. Schwede66 22:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schwede66. It's identified as free, so it could go to commons, and it seems in keeping with commons:COM:EDUSE to host there for that exact reason. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coronation Street Siege Week, Carla Connor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Poeheese (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Disputed fair-use/bad-rationale tagging. This is a recently added image that appears to fit the same use-case as the nonfree File:Carla Connor and Robbie Siege Week.png that has long been the infobox image for Siege Week, so it's excessive to have more than one. Its later alternate use-case was in the bio article for the actress who plays this character. But the content there is a wrapper around her aspects and relationships of that same Siege Week article, so having an image in the bio article does not add additional info since there is that separate article on that topic. And having a second image that illustrates the same idea (even if that bio article were a reasonable use) rather than re-using the same image further fails NFCC#3a. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The image was first used in Siege Week where it failed WP:NFCC#3a since the current infobox image also shows the character with tape covering her mouth. This same image was also previously on Commons were it was deleted for being copyrighted. The image is now in the actress article, Alison King, in a section talking about her work on Coronation Street. "For these scenes, she had to be tied to a chair with her hands tied behind her back and have her mouth gagged with gaffer tape." is sufficient to describe what is in the screenshot without the screenshot being present and fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the screenshot thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Aspects (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Although the original map has fallen out of copyright, any news maps created will be subject to copyright, and there is no evidence that this specific upload is freely licensed. ℯxplicit 00:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1885-1918 Skipton.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Threehundredeight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Even though this is claimed to be a 19th century map, it looks more like a map created on a computer, and there were no computers in the 19th century. Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many images on wikipedia whose original creation was in the 19th century and all ended up on here by use of modern computers. So what is your point? Threehundredeight (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, a real 19th century map would look old, whereas this map does not. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map of the image file does not look old, the map of the original work does.Threehundredeight (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Threehundredeight: How was the image file created? Did you draw it following the contours of the old map? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jo-Jo Eumerus: The image file was created from another digital source. Threehundredeight (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Threehundredeight: Do you have a link to it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see file page Threehundredeight (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this map and the others @Threehundredeight: has created are just wrongly licenced. As these aren't reproductions of the original maps the licence used isn't correct. As they are drawings created by Threehundredeight based on data that is over 130 years old and out of copyright if it was copyrightable data, I see no reason why they can't be cc licenced or licened under ((pd-self)). Nthep (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The upload wizard asks questions relating to the 'file' and questions relating to the 'original work'. I provided answers to both. In the licencing section, the wizard asks questions about the 'original work'. In that section I provided answers relating to that original work. I do not claim copyright on this work. Threehundredeight (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, IMO, the description of all should be changed to being your own work based on data from British Parliamentary Election Results 1885-1918 by FWS Craig with the date of this year and the licence set to ((pd-self)). Nthep (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I am not the copyright holder, therefore should not use ((pd-self)) as it's not entirely my own work. You don't need to be expert in copyright law to understand this, as the upload wizard is clear on this licensing matter. Threehundredeight (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who created the images that were uploaded? If those are your original creations based on old data then you are the copyright holder. The source of the data should be credited but only with being the source used to create a series of new images. Nthep (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ragatanga - clipe.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Malhação2017 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

FUR says 1 frame, when it is clearly (an annoying - and I would suggest not good for epileptics) 2 frame loop, one normal frame plus one back to front and colour reversed. There are already 3 Non-free files on the page. so adding a fourth - it probably fails WP:NFCC#3a and also WP:NFCC#8. If it was trimmed to one frame then it's just an image of a group on a stage, and therefore replaceable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, the file fails WP:NFCC#8: it should only be used in an article about the music video but not in the main article about the song. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: convert to fair use. ℯxplicit 00:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regular Show S8 Region 4 DVD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benjamin Nilsson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyvio, no permission or evidence of being freely licensed. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly incorrectly licensed. I have changed the licensing non-free video cover and added a fairuse. Discussion can be closed now. Salavat (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly not own work by the uploader. Can be kept with the new tags provided by User:Salavat. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.