The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC -FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly it is a vital image for the article as it shows the club identity, I don't think UUI17 applies here either. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Which article(s) are you refering to? Jonteemil (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You specifically refer to #17 for a national team crest, or a football club crest, except what you seem to be forgetting is the crest on each team are is the crest of that national team as a whole entity, you're calling the lower teams and woman's teams child entities. Firstly the crest is not parented too the FAs. They are not child entities in law. Football clubs are a single entity, the other teams are not child entities in law. Govvy (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on senior nat. teams (remove youth national) – I do think there needs to be more clarification on #17 for national team logos; my understanding from similar cases such as the Korea Republic and Mexico logos, many consider the youth national teams as child entities of the senior national teams, being both men and women's teams. The only case for which the national team emblem would be deleted is if it was the same as the national association emblem, failing #17 as all national teams are child entities of the association. In this case, the national team emblem is different from the association and I believe it should remain exclusively on the men and women's national team pages, the men and women's national futsal teams, men and women's national beach football teams, and removed from all youth national teams (assuming all these pages exist). Idiosincrático (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC -FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it looks to be the official logo of all the teams where it has a free use rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed the official logo of all the team's whose articles it is used in, however that doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim of UUI17 violation. The decision comes down to defining child entity. Wikipedia:Database reports/Overused non-free files which is the page I went through defines overused as used on more than four pages. Now, I don't think that definition is true in all cases but I guess it's a good reference value that most often holds true. Jonteemil (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, #UUI17 was decided per Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item back in 2014. That discussion regarded a TV company but I've seen the criterion be used frequently by different users to remove overused non-free sport logos from all but one or two articles in which it previously was used. I can link som FFDs later. Jonteemil (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC -FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly it is a vital image for the article as it shows the club identity, I don't think UUI17 applies here. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article (refering to AFC Ajax), yes. The articles (refering to all 6 articles that use the logo), no. #UUI17 certainly applies. Jonteemil (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJonteemil could you clarify your comment further, as it's not clear to me. Are you saying that it's the logo of the parent company AFC Ajax N.V. and not the sports teams themselves? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFC#UUI17 states: The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. […] The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable.File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg is currently used in 6 articles and I think that that extensive use is in violation of #UU17. I'd say that only AFC Ajax, which arguably, is the main Ajax article should use the logo. Jonteemil (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the logo of all of these teams, and is used by all of them on their shirts in matches (just go on each of the team's websites, and this is clear). Thus, it is a valid logo for all of these articles. I see no actual evidence that AFC Ajax "own" the logo, and the women's team certainly isn't just a "child entity" of the men's team, which is the wording of UUI17. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 19#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. The fact that they all play with the logo on their chest doesn't mean that they aren't violating UUI17. Since the men's team was founded 112 years before the women's team I think it's fair to say that it's a child entity. Most of the UUI17 implementations have removed the logo from the women's team article and I would assume it's because most teams started as a men's team, and then got a women's team along the way. If the team started as a women's team, and got a men's team along the way then it would be the men's team that would be the child entity. See the three last nominations on Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#footer for example. Jonteemil (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is about the logo of a federation, which is not the logo of the team (which is a clear invalid use I agree). But I believe this logo is the logo of all of the teams, so is a valid fair use. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "discussion" had almost no comments, and consisted mostly of deciding f the logo was public domain or not. Apart from the nominator, nobody else actually cast a vote- this can't be used as evidence of a precedent being set. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UUI17 is not a valid reason for deletion if the image has a valid non-free use. If it is used inappropriately on any of the child articles, then it should be removed from those articles but it is most certainly valid for the main article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree with you. I'm not trying to get the file deleted. Read my rationale. Jonteemil (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove it from the ones you feel it should be removed from, it might ruffle a few feathers but it's the correct (and probably simpler) thing to do. If it hadn't been deleted and reinstated, that would've made things easier as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want consensus on removal first. And this is the correct procedure for that. There are many FFDs regarding removal of logos from some child entity articles per UUI17. Apparently the first one was Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png back in 2014. It was there decided that the logo of Bhutan FA only be used in Bhutan Football Federation and not in the articles of the Bhutan national teams as they are child entities. Jonteemil (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a bonkers nomination. If there are fair use violations, remove the logo from the pages where the violation has taken place, but at least one article has a valid fair use claim for this image, so suggesting deletion is pure lunacy. – PeeJay 14:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting deletion… Jonteemil (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it’s not clear what you’re suggesting… – PeeJay 07:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that the usage of the logo violates WP:NFC#UUI17 in all instances except in AFC Ajax. Jonteemil (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so what do you want us to do about it? You’re capable of rectifying the situation yourself, aren’t you? – PeeJay 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I guess you're right that I just boldly could've removed the logo from the pages violating UUI17 myself, however since I've seen similar FFDs before I was/am under the assumption that one should seek consensus first. To remove a file from some articles and keep it in others is also one of the example rationales given at WP:FFD if you scroll down a bit. Jonteemil (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post to FFD means you assume the removal would result in discussion. The better way to discover if that's the case is to WP:BOLD, remove the image from the offending articles, and then raise here if that's reverted. Otherwise it's a waste of time to throw up multiple tasks that get flagged on tangentially related WikiProjects which already have enough to deal with, to make a claim nobody disputes, in a minimal-effort, incomplete FFD that doesn't actually attempt to discuss anything. -75.164.167.40 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but since I've seen so many similar FFDs before I just assumed the procedure was to post it to FFD and then let an admin remove it where it violated UUI17. Not to boldly do it yourself. But I guess I was wrong. Jonteemil (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable, procedural close. It's been suggested that some usages of this image are not complaint with NFCC, but the nom failed to state which ones. I'm also not seeing any clear consensus on what (if any) links should be removed. For future reference, file usages that do not comply with NFCC may be removed without going to FfD. FfD is only necessary if there is an active dispute about whether the usage of any given file complies with NFCC -FASTILY 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it looks to be the official logo of all the teams where it has a free use rationale. If this is not the case, this needs to be clearly explained as to why it isn't- simply listing WP:NFC#UUI17 doesn't give adequate detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Fenix down just like Joseph2302 above says that the Bhutan FA logo is used on the jersey's of all the national teams of Bhutan and that it hence can't be removed per UUI17. It is however concluded that all are under the same organization, and hence it is decided that the logo be removed from all team articles and just kept in Bhutan Football Federation. Pinging Masem and Hammersoft if you would care to wheigh in. Anybody who enforces NFCC/NFC routinely runs into editors who insist on restoring violating content. - Hammersoft. That's how I feel now. Jonteemil (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we sure that the top team is actually the source of this logo, and it wasn't used in some other sport? IT looks to me like many other Australian logos. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you google Ice Hockey Australia, it seems as this is the symbol that is placed on the front of the players' shirts. Jonteemil (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the deletion discussion is about UUI17, which relies on a parent/initial use. If some other sport used it first, then, all the current uses on Wikipedia violate UU17 as "child" (other Australian national use), if we have an article on that topic that could make use of an image with a kangaroo of this same shape. Or that's how it seems to me via UUI17 -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Thanos in What If...? (TV series).jpg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Animated version of thanos simply in the article without any explanation, compared to the other depictions of thanos relating to CGI advances or facial animation. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Grandmaster Huon: I am a little confused, what exactly did you want done with the image? Govvy (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need multiple non-free images of Thanos, as per WP:NFCC#3. This one fails WP:NFCC#8, as it doesn't significantly enhance the article, as there isn't lots of text about this particular image in that series. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This free-use image is completely unnecessary, and should be deleted because of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:AshworthGeraldH.JPG
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image is still copyrighted in US. — Ирука13 11:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is about 59 years old currently. I believe you, but I was wondering how you knew it still had a US copyright? It was taken in Tokyo in 1964. The intellectual property rights for Japanese photos are a bit complex and have changed a bit which makes it less clear if the photo is still copyrighted in the US. Thanks Dcw2003 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is indicated in the license template itself, in the second part of it. You add 50 years to 1962 and you get 2012. 2012 is greater than 1996, so now you need to count 95 years from 1962. — Ирука13 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:A80386DX-20 1988 Sigma-Sigma no S-Spec no white logo.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 image has been indexed by TinEye since 2016. Image has been removed from Commons. The image is not used, and it has analogues on Commons. — Ирука13 16:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You can delete this file if you want. If that's what you meant and it's not used anywhere. Andrzej w k 2 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I add Information table and add author but I don't know how add Licensing information Andrzej w k 2 (talk) 21:37, 21 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.
File:AntonioJuliano.jpg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Date of publication is unknown - it cannot be argued that the image is PD in US. — Ирука13 16:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Artist, maker unknown, Korean - Pair of Bird-and-Flower Paintings - Google Art Project.jpg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Date of publication of the image/painting: 1970 (?). There is no date of the author's death. Those license templates that are now on the file description page are not applicable. — Ирука13 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Henrique3d's Alternative Brazilian flag proposal.png
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Etelvoldo Pascolini.jpg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
It is not known when the photo was published: the license status in the US is unknown. — Ирука13 20:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2023+August+21%23File%3AThanos+in+What+If...%3F+%28TV+series%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
