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. The file was uploaded for use in Banknotes of the Australian dollar. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 07:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a valid option if the file is indeed non-free, and since the source wasn't using exclusively 1966-68 bills in their displays, that's a distinct possibility. However what would work is deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it really is non-free then it should go to CSD, not here. An out-of-copyright work does not suddenly become in copyright because it has been reprinted. If it's not possible to tell the difference, then there is no new creative work in it. SpinningSpark 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm treating the front and back of the bill as a single object, and because subsequent reprintings change the front (new signatures for the governor and secretary), I decided to go get new backs (and fronts) that were explicitly from 1966/67 so that there would be no question as to the public domain status. It might be overkill, but since those versions are available, there's no reason not to prioritize using them over ones where the status is unclear. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is overkill in my opinion. A page of a work that is public domain does not cease to be public domain because a different page in that work is within copyright. You cannot declare the image non-free because there might be copyrighted material on the unseen back of the paper. That is ridiculous. Besides which, the Commons guideline on signatures normally treats them as public domain.
My rationale for keeping has nothing to do with which images should be in articles. It is not uncommon for image quality to be discussed on talk pages. Redirecting the poor quality image to the better one will make such discussions unintelligible. An edit in the history which replaces one image for another exactly the same will make little sense. In short, there are rational reasons for keeping, but no clear benefit to deleting.
By the way, is there a way of getting the bot to hold off on deletion until we can bottom out how all these pages should be licensed? SpinningSpark 13:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The bot will re-add the template again today, I suspect. However, unless this gets relisted, this discussion will conclude before the seven days in the speedy clock, and even if it is relisted, I'm sure any admin processing the speedy request will see the FfD template and look here before deleting. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2020 (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. The file was uploaded for use in Banknotes of the Australian dollar. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 08:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a valid option if the file is indeed non-free, and since the source wasn't using exclusively 1966-68 bills in their displays, that's a distinct possibility. However what would work is deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (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. The file was uploaded for use in Banknotes of the Australian dollar. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 08:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's Coombs' signature on the left, which would make this freely licensed. Someone could go through the effort of converting the license from non-free to free, however I don't see the point considering the replacement on Commons is vastly higher quality. Instead I suggest deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (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. The file was uploaded for use in Banknotes of the Australian dollar. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 08:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a valid option if the file is indeed non-free, and since the source wasn't using exclusively 1966-68 bills in their displays, that's a distinct possibility. However what would work is deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (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. The file was uploaded for use in Lawrence Hargrave. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 08:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a valid option if the file is indeed non-free, and since the source wasn't using exclusively 1966-68 bills in their displays, that's a distinct possibility. However what would work is deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (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.
That's not actually a valid option if the file is indeed non-free, and since the source wasn't using exclusively 1966-68 bills in their displays, that's a distinct possibility. However what would work is deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (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. The file was uploaded for use in Banknotes of the Australian dollar. It should be kept to preserve the history of the page. If deleted, editors will not be able to view the contents of previous versions of the page. SpinningSpark 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could go through the effort of converting the license from non-free to free, however I don't see the point considering the replacement on Commons. Instead I suggest deleting the local file, then creating a local redirect from this file name to the Commons file that's used in the article now. It's not an identical image, but it's so similar that viewers wouldn't lose anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2020 (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: PNG should be used whenever possible for non-photographs. -FASTILY 00:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to replace the inferior JPEG version with the more superior PNG version was reverted as "unexplained" and warned to be reported to admin. IMHO, the revert was unjust, and the reasons to revert were too discouraging. I would like the PNG version to replace the other, but I'd welcome other comments. George Ho (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2020 (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:CBXmasSoundtrack65rear.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.
Note that it is unused from me removing it but there is no valid rationale here for this piece of non-free media. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rear cover from original release has not been included on any CD releases and warranted inclusion for historical purposes for perspective.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFCC 8 - not the subject of critical discussion using cited prose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (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:Basketball backboard shattering - photo by Chuck Miller.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.
This copyrighted work is used because a replacement "cannot be easily found". WP:NFCC#1 requires that "[n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." 167.29.4.150 (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is an occurrence for which a freely licensed image could be reasonably obtained, so fails NFCC 1. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Obsuser: I'm not sure if you really meant cannot be found instead of the lighter cannot be easily found that you wrote.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Find the easy replacement and use it in the article then. I think that no free equivalent is available or could be created. --Obsuser (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that a freely licensed image of a shattered backboard could be created or found? Really? How many times has this happened before? How many people were in the stadium each of those times? I don't think this is a solid argument. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2020 (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:CoralGardensAndTheirMagic.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.
Imagine is unclear, and largely redundant Artimaean (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC
Delete per NFCC 8 - Not seeing any discussion of the cover in the prose, and not seeing how it adds to the understanding of the subject matter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2020 (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.
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+May+11%23File%3AThe+Greatest+Showman+%28Original+Motion+Picture+Soundtrack%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
