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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Japanese Naval-Merchant Shipping Loses by Allied Forces - JANAC.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2023 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, stretched out version of File:John Gore (aspect ratio workaround).jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 00:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2023 (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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when the photo was published is not known. Template ((PD-Italy)) does not apply to it. — Ирука¹³ 01:27, 2 August 2023 (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: keep. UIS government works are public domain. They may request to be attributed a certain way but that does not affect the fact that is PD. Whpq (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the forty photos uploaded by the contributor from www.history.navy.mil.

The site says Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description). [Photography].

The site also says: Official government photographs and documents are in the public domain and may be scanned and reproduced in print or online. They may be cropped or resized, but their content may not be altered. It is requested that any photograph or document used in print or online credit the Archives, in the form: Folder title, Box number, Collection, Archives Branch, Naval History and Heritage Command, Washington, DC [Scanning, Copyright & Citation Information]. Which looks like ((CC-BY-ND)).

A few random photos I've looked at also have the owner – "Naval History and Heritage Command", which goes against the concept of the public domain. — Ирука¹³ 02:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Naval History and Heritage Command is part of the US Navy. see https://www.history.navy.mil/

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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author unknown, date and place of publication unknown. The image is most likely not PD. — Ирука¹³ 03:45, 2 August 2023 (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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINAL. — Ирука¹³ 05:26, 2 August 2023 (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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two covers are very similar and not discussed critically, so this fails at WP:NFCC ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:28, 2 August 2023 (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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both covers are pretty similar and this non-free media is not necessary for understanding or critically discussed, so it fails WP:NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 2 August 2023 (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 ⚡ 15:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generic logo being used in a specific season article in violation of WP:GETTY point 14. Nothing about this logo is specific to the 2023 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 11:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2023 (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: keep. Keep have identified that the images are not identical and are used in that context. Whpq (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical, from the reader's point of view, images (WP:NFCC#3a). — Ирука¹³ 18:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This deletion proposal is absolute garbage. Simply bearing some resemblance is meaningless when you cannot use one image to illustrate the other. Either it's the 2008 map, or it's not. And it's important to visualize both - they are important to Vignelli's biography as well as the history of the New York City Subway map, and have an abundance of sourced commentary about them and their changes. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For understanding how services are arranged (its original purpose) it's almost identical but that's not why we have it. For understanding the evolution of subway maps, each is different. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see: slight change in background color, slight change in scale, slight change in line color. What are you seeing? — Ирука¹³ 10:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The line colors were changed substantially, not "slightly", in 1979. The change in line colors alone represented a significant deviation in how the New York City Subway map was presented. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? — Ирука¹³ 01:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among others, Paul Goldberger. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't understand why you are giving me a link to the 1979 article when we are discussing the 2008 map.

Second, if the information is not in the Wikipedia article, it is irrelevant to this discussion: the non-free image is here, not there. — Ирука¹³ 13:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally mentioned the 1979 color change right above, and my comment was intended to show that the line colors were in fact substantially changed around that time. Given that you asked for a reliable source when questioned about the line colors, and are now dismissing the source when presented with one, I am not discussing this further. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I didn't ask a source about line colors. I asked source about lines color changes. — Ирука¹³ 01:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+ WP:NFCC#8:
The purpose of this map is to be included in the magazine. Something else?
How many sentences describe the features of this map? One and a half.
How many reliavle sources support the text in the subsection? None.
Why is the first map not in "The 1970s Vignelli map" section? Because the lack of need for a second map will become even more obvious.
Where is that "major discussion of work" that is stated in the "Purpose of use in article" column on the file description page? Where is "major contribution by Vignelli"? What does it consist in? — Ирука¹³ 10:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is unclear making it difficult to respond. What magazine are you talking about? And you're making up criteria that doesn't exist. Nothing in the NFCC talks about numbering sentences, counting sources, or having a major discussion. Nevertheless, there are 17 sentences, a great amount of content, that talks about the 2000s Vignelli map. And your ridiculous idea that the 1972 map is in the wrong place has nothing to do with this fair-use image discussion. The 1972 map is first discussed in detail at the top of Massimo Vignelli#New York City Subway map, and thus there it belongs.

ɱ

(talk) 15:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X invited Vignelli to submit a commemorative edition of his map for inclusion in (..) magazine. Why else was this map created?

17sentences. How many of them are about what is drawn on the map?

"great amount of content" -- is it anything other than those 17 sentences?

The 1972 map discussed in detail: In August 1972, Vignelli's design for the New York City Subway map appeared on the walls of subway stations and became a landmark in Modernist information design. Vignelli regarded the map as one of his finest creations. — Ирука¹³ 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the entire content at Massimo Vignelli and New York City Subway map? There are paragraphs of content about the 2008 map, which was made into the current-day Weekender map. These paragraphs of content are well more than sufficient context for nonfree images. Stop making up your own rules and questions and accept it.

ɱ

(talk) 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why will the presence of this map in the article significantly improve the understanding of the article by the reader? — Ирука¹³ 01:37, 7 August 2023 (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: No "missing info" was added since the FfD was started, so defaulting to nom's suggestion to delete. No prejudice to restoration if someone can present additional evidence from a reliable source explicitly proving this image to be PD -FASTILY 02:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date and place of publication of the photo are unknown. The site from which the picture is taken indicates that "Images in the photo collection are intended for personal use only. Any reproduction, redistribution, publication, or other use, by any means, without prior written permission is prohibited.". The license ((PD-US)) is not applicable. — Ирука¹³ 18:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info has been added. Thank you Telecine Guy (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (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.

August 2

File:Japanese Naval-Merchant Shipping Loses by Allied Forces - JANAC.jpg

File:John Gore.jpg

File:Alessandro Piazzoni.jpg

File:Admiral Spaun deck.png

File:Laura Lund Van Cott.jpg

File:Caliban artistic.png

File:PearlJam-RiotAct2.jpg

File:Pearl Jam Vs Vinyl.JPG

File:2023 Caribbean Premier League logo.png

File:Javeria Siddique.jpg

File:Vignelli NYC Subway map 2008.jpg

File:Rail-Mule-car-Monrovia-1884-Myrtle-Avenue.jpg