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.
Tagged VRT received for 5 months. Upon reviewing the associated VRT ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 05:40, 6 October 2021 (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.
File:Central Market midcentury.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 23:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Also dubious WP:NFCC#1 assessment. Why is it believed that no free images exist? The image is from the time when copyright notices and renewals were required. What checks have been made to verify if there are other images which were published without notice or renewal, such as advertisements? Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a violation of #8, I discuss its Tudor-Revival trim that was in place for its last 36 years, and thus is how many residents identify the building, as stated it was "commonly associated with the building". It also shows the building in the mid-20th century. The only free files show it around the turn of the century, before the automobile era and urban revitalization. The image conveys it as a relic of a past time, an important part of the historical narrative. As for NFCC #1, again, this would be another benefit of talking to me first. I wrote the article on the market, and had a heavily exhaustive search (literally and figuratively) to find free images of the building in this era. All you have to do is ask, not tag-bomb. ɱ(talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that this discussion you're referring to above is the second paragraph in Central Market (Columbus, Ohio)#History, then perhaps there's a better way to support what's being claimed than a single citation at the end of the paragraph. Right now, it's not clear (at least in my opinion) whether everything in that paragraph reflects what is written in the cited source or whether the source is for only the last sentence. I'm getting a 404 error when I try and check the source, which is making verifying things a bit hard at the moment. An image isn't automatically "historic" per WP:NFCC#8 (as clarified in item 8 of WP:NFCI, WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:NFC#CS) just because it's old or shows how something looked a long time ago; historic images tend to be ones which themselves are the subject of sourced critical commentary either at the time the image was taken or in the years since. There might be critical commentary added about an image to an article, but it's going to be considered WP:OR in many cases if it's unsourced or vaguely sourced. So, if there's a way to further clarify things about the image in this article by adding more supporting sources or clarifying whether the existing source applies to the entire paragraph, then that might help sort out the NFCC#8 concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a near-repeat of an earlier comment you made to me. If you really think ((Non-free historic image)) is meant for what you claim it is meant for, why not try to reword it? Because as it stands right now, the only part that says "the image itself" has to be the subject of commentary is when the image is from a press agency. For general uses, like sentences above that, it has no such clarification. ɱ(talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
((Non-free historic image)) is a copyright license template. I didn't create it or any of the other similar templates, but my guess what that they were worded in a way that allowed them to make them easier to apply to certain types of non-free files. Simply adding a non-free copyright license doesn't, however, make a non-free automatically WP:NFCC compliant; even adding a non-free use rationale doesn't make a particular use compliant. The burden falls upon the uploader of a non-free file per WP:NFCCE to provide a valid justification of it's use(s), and any disagreement over this can be resolved through discussions like this. If a consensus is establish in favor of the file's use, then the file will be kept; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well it's abundantly clear that the image can be licensed as nonfree-historic without the physical photograph needing to have its own notability. ɱ(talk) 22:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I would be cautious when taking that narrow interpretation - the guidelines/essays you cited to me do not stress that the image itself has to be iconic and subject of commentary, but that the image has to have a historical importance, and parallel critical commentary in the article. ɱ(talk) 22:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is what I based my comment on. I didn't WP:!VOTE in this discussion, only commented. Either way, if my interpretation is incorrect, then whatever consensus is established will almost certainly not reflect what I posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix the dead URL to Edible Columbus, but you're not very clear going on about references and paragraphs, can you explain more clearly what you intend to point out about that? ɱ(talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a seven sentence paragraph supported by a single citation at the end. The content spans a 30-year period, and one of the sentences even appears to be an indirect quote attributed to the Governor of Ohio. The only sentence which specifically seems to tie into the market's appearance and thus this file's use is the first sentenace: "In 1930, the market was remodeled by Thomas Tully, with new dormers, half-timber trim, new roof lines, and heating and refrigeration installed." That sentence, however, doesn't seem to be supported by a source. Is all of that content of that paragraph supported by the same single citation? If it is, then perhaps would be better to clarify this (if possible) to make the WP:INTEGRITY a bit clearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are three instances that mention timber, several that talk about urban renewal, and one that mentions its historic surroundings, contrasted by the more modern nonfree image here. ɱ(talk) 22:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this about citations is a dead giveaway that you're not a seasoned writer here. You don't have to cite every single sentence, in fact, you're discouraged from doing that. Unless it really needs to be clear, e.g. with a controversial statement, it is better to add the inline citation following all the information being cited, usually at the end of the paragraph. So, yes, those seven sentences were from that reference, and I'm not about to add six more citations just to clutter up the prose. ɱ(talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - this building is almost always depicted with the Tudor Revival trim. It's the most identifiable feature, and unique for a public building and near-unique entirely for Columbus. This is the case so much that works that talk about it, including A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus, only use a photograph of it with the Tudor Revival exterior. To have an article on the building without this appearance is like having an article on the U.S. Capitol but only depicting it with photographs from its pre-dome state. ɱ(talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (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.
File:University Hall demolition.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 07:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - University Hall in its late stages is discussed, and there's two-three entire paragraphs about its demolition, including saving portions of the building. As well, the visual effect of the image is irreplaceable. ɱ(talk) 18:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I disagree with the assessment given above by the file's uploader. It is true that the building itself is discussed in University Hall (Ohio State University)#History. There's content about how the building began to deteriorate in the 1960s and how it was eventually torn down, but none of these things actually require the reader to see this particular non-free image to be understood per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). There's also a free image of how the building appeared in 1968 which is close enough time wise to show how the building looked before it was demolished; so, the claim of "This historic image depicts a building that no longer exists, and no free images depicting the building at this time are in existence." given in this file's non-free use rationale is, IMO, not really the case. A claim of WP:IRREPLACEABLE doesn't automatically make an image irreplaceable and I'm unable to see how adding this image to the article significantly improves the reader's understanding of the history of the building in such a way that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the image doesn't have the shock value of the ripped apart structure, standing in its last moments before erasure, I don't know what to tell you. Columbus has a problem with demolishing historic sites, and images like this are what it takes to keep people from making more examples of this wretched tear-down. ɱ(talk) 22:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate some feel that Columbus has a problem with demolishing historic sites, but it's not really Wikipedia's purpose to use non-free images to right such a great wrong. Such image preservation efforts might be better made in other ways. If there's some way to incorporate more sourced critical content either about the image itself or about any controversy associated with the building's deletion that goes beyond "After being closed in 1968 for safety reasons, the building was slated for demolition in 1970, while serving as a symbol for the university's centennial that year. It was completely torn down in 1971.", then perhaps its non-free use would be better justified. That's my assessment and opinion, for sure, and others who feel differently can post otherwise and establish a consensus in favor of the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily righting a wrong, it's me showing the usefulness of a photograph beyond what you might see as an outsider without a greater understanding of the history and preservation efforts within Columbus, Ohio. ɱ(talk) 22:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also - and this is important - a key element for historians. We already have a replacement building there, the new University Hall, that looks so much like the old that people tell me that building is old (when it's not). How are readers going to trust a narrative saying it was demolished, or even renovated, without evidence like this? I sure wish a photo like this existed for Rockwood Hall. Was it demolished, or was it remodeled? I made a decision that the best sources and evidence say it was remodeled, but many contemporary sources say otherwise. Same with many myths passed on about Grand Central Terminal. Without presenting photographic evidence, a claim is barely half of what it could be. ɱ(talk) 23:12, 6 October 2021 (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.
File:Apple store 2017-19 renovation.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 23:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#8: no need to see a picture of it being renovated to understand that it was renovated. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the file demonstrates the reconstruction of the cube with three massive panels of glass per side, and is the only known photograph to show it alongside the temporary Apple store. Both are part of critical commentary in the article. ɱ(talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Free pictures of previous renovations already exist, and there is already another nonfree image in the article. Does not really serve to improve my visual aid since it doesn't describe any particular unique renovation. The box in 2011 was pretty unique, warranting its inclusion (plus the presence of multiple free images), but this one I don't see anything that would improve critical commentary. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:46, 15 October 2021 (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 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:1967 Moturoa V New Plymouth United.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.
Unclear why there would be no copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (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.
File:Majura Parkway.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.
Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2021 (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.
File:Soviet Major General Dmitrii Ivanovich Stankevskii.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 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:190501 Jang Ki-yong.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.
Delete: Per nom, original image was uploaded in 2019 while the more defined image was uploaded two years later. Best to keep the better among the two in comparison to keeping both. Would've been best to overwrite the initial file with the second upload however what's done is done. Suugaapio (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2021 (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.
Keep: @Stefan2: Contrary to what you said on Commons, that is not Google Maps. That's the FCC's LMS mapping system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then it would perhaps be better to provide a link to the FCC's LMS mapping system as the source of the image instead of linking to a Commons file. The same link could then be added to the Commons file and a comment added to the Commons DR to clarify such. The file might've just been uploaded to Commons with an incorrect license and perhaps it can be shown to actually be OK as ((PD-USgov)) or a similar PD license instead; such a thing, however, will need to be clearly established because this file will end up going if the Commons file ends up going if things remain as is. Moreover, if the Commons file turns out to be OK, there's really no reason to keep a cropped version of it locally here on English Wikipedia. The cropped version could be moved to Commons and the two files' descriptions could be then updated with c:Template:Image extracted and c:Template:Extracted from to show more clearly how the two files are connected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I didn't update the original when I updated the WDSW-LP page, the original was already there. I just cropped it, renamed it (per naming rules), and saved it Wikipedia, not commons since it was FCC LMS. I put the license as CC4.0 as that was what it was by the previous uploader. I have no problem switching the licenses around, that's not a problem. I also have no issue with the image just not being in the article altogether. It's not particularly necessary, but since it was already there (a unique image), I decided to use it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided does seem to work. If that's deemed sufficient for the Commons file to be kept, it will making keeping this one pretty much automatic. If content created by the FCC falls under WP:PD#US government works, then the only thing that might be needed is to tweak both file licenses to reflect that. Perhaps, c:Template:PD-USGov-FCC would be fine to use and then all that would be needed is to revise the descriptions of the uploaded files accordingly. FWIW, I don't think the CC license is correct because using a zoom feature to create a blown up version of the map seems (at least to me) to be more of a case of c:COM:2D copying than a case of c:COM:DW; so, no new copyright would be established for the zoomed image. People are uploading files to Commons all of the time, and in many cases they misunderstand what "own work" means; thus, their choice of license is based on this misunderstanding. In almost all cases, it's just a misunderstanding and not a case of intentionally trying to deceive. Commons can't, though, simply just accept a claim per c:COM:PCP is there's significant doubt raised and in such cases some supporting evidence is needed for files to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: As the original shows, with the various buttons, that match the source. Google Maps stopped providing mapping API to websites across the web back in 2018 and the FCC was one of them. Most signs either use MapBox or OpenStreetMap now. So, MapBox is the provider of the map itself, but the information is provided by the FCC. So, ((PD-USGov)) or ((PD-USGov-FCC)) would still work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 7 October 2021 (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.
File:Horse and cart near whitwarta, early 1900s.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.
Unclear source. If it's from the early 20th century, how can the uploader have obtained the image from the author? Isn't he dead, or did the uploader obtain the image a long time ago? There is also no evidence that the copyright holder has released this into the public domain as stated. Depending on how early into the 20th century this was, it could be that the image is in the public domain because of age, but there is insufficient information to verify this. Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (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.
File:Dr. Rachel Dutton.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: Unclear copyright status. If you are the copyright holder, please follow this procedure to get the file restored -FASTILY 07:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As part of WiGS's goal to expand the Wikipedia page's of women in STEM, Dr. Dutton has shared the photo above for use on Wikipedia.
”
This licence sounds more like ((db-f3)) instead of the licence indicated on the file information page. Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This doesn't look like a selfie per se which means permission being given by the subject of the photo is probably irrelevant. However, if the person who took the photo can email their WP:CONSENT to WP:Contact VRT, then this probably can be kept. Another possibility could be that this would be considered ((PD-CAGov)) as explained in WP:PD#US government works. The subject is a professor at the University of California, San Diego which could mean that this photo was taken by an employee of the university as part of their official duties. The State of California is one of the states in which works created by state employees as part of their official duties are considered to be PD; so, the question is whether university employees are considered state employees. Perhaps this will help clarify that. It seems as if this photo might fall under item "2. Personal Works" in the "Copyright Ownership by Category of Work" section. I do agree, however, with the Stefan2 that if the copyright holder's intent was the release this under a "for Wikipedia use only" type of license, then that wouldn't be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure works by UC employees don't count as works by state employees for the policy you are discussing. Otherwise all publications by UC researchers would be PD automatically (as publications by US federal government researchers are), and they are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine though the general copyright statement I linked to in my post does make a distinction between "1. Scholarly & Aesthetic Works", and other types of works. I thought that perhaps either "2. Personal Works" or "7. Institutional Work" might be pertain to a photo such as this, but those do seem to imply that such works aren't automatically PD; so, perhaps university employees aren't considered state employees, at least not in the sense that they would fall under "PD-CAGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The permission statement indicates https://womengs.wixsite.com/home/post/hosted-gs-seminar-speaker-dr-rachel-dutton as the image's source which is a CCBY 4.0 licence. The purpose of the "use on Wikipedia" statement should not be interpreted as a limitation on the licence (which would be inadmissible) but as a rationale for publicising the licence. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does makes sense and if the licensing statement is acceptable, then there's no reason this can be kept by simply tweaking the file's license to match the information of the source link as long as the photo originated with the source website. It does seem, however, that the website might've received the photo from the subject and thus I'm not sure that the website's copyright statement is acceptable in such a case. It's a bit of a pain perhaps, but it seems the best thing would be to have whoever took the photo simply send a CONSENT email to VRT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2021 (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.
File:Shelbourne Valley.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.
It says that the image May be reproduced for noncommercial purposes which conflicts with the claim that the image has been released to the public domain by the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2021 (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.
File:Fratie-Dreptate-chirilic.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.
Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2021 (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.
File:Michael Chavis July 2019.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 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:Kepifamas.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.
No evidence of permission. The uploader is also the subject of the photo, meaning he likely isn't the photographer and therefore does not hold copyright. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2021 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
