This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have eitherfree content ornon-free content usage concerns.Files that have been listed here for more than7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote thenon-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought todeletion review.
For concerns not listed below,if a deletion isuncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
Forspeedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of thespeedy deletion templates. See thecriteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free withoutrationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of fileexcluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia,not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or{{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
Forblatant copyright infringements, usespeedy deletion by tagging the file{{db-f9}}.
If a file islisted as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by aVRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable undercriterion G8; use{{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable undercriterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use{{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file isappropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to theWikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible forspeedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
Ifyou are the uploader of the image, tag it with{{db-author}}.
Instructions
To list files for discussion,useTwinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you canread its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:
How to list a file for discussion manually
Most of these steps are performed automatically when usingTwinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps:
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use{{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may usethis tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add{{Ffd|log=2026 February 14}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using{{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use{{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding{{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2026 February 14}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably inbold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet thethreshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using{{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as afreely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is:too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread atMedia Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember thatpolling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determiningconsensus is throughediting and discussion,notvoting. Although editors occasionally usestraw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no morebinding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved toWikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding'''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. SeeWikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed byAnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Delete No evidence from my searches that the statue has been taken down. I believe that even if Ireland didn't have FOP (and an image of this statue was still needed for some reason), a free-use image, even if the statue is non-free, would be preferred perWP:FREER.Based5290 :3 (talk)03:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meetWP:NFCCP#1 (As, per nom, an equivalent/Commons-compatible image could potentially be created). And doesn't meetWP:NFCCP#8 (As there are multiple Commons-compatible images in the article - and the omission of the statue image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic as a whole. Or, indeed, undermine the short piece of text about the statue itself.)Guliolopez (talk)15:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A paper (Academia link, it's published in a legit paywalled journal though) states that the cameras were automatic. A few other (non-Wikipedia) sources have said that the cameras were automatic and remotely triggered by Nedelin to capture the attempted launch.Sennecaster (Chat)04:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: What doesNot sufficiently different from the standard cover mean? It is definitely different from the standard edition cover which features Sia's image against black background; the deluxe cover featuresMaddie Ziegler against beige-like-colored background.Camilasdandelions (✉️)12:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sufficiently different such that it conveys equally significant information to the standard cover. It is not subject of any criminal commentary. Just because the image is superficially different doesn't warrant it's inclusion.estar8806 (talk)★13:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly is different from the original cover. However, this alone does not disqualify it from deletion.WP:NFCCP says thatnon-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The deluxe cover doesn't have any significant coverage attached to it, and so is kind of unnecessary. In general, we don't do deluxe covers unless the deluxe cover itself receives coverage from reliable sources. (Also, I think estar8806 used "criminal" instead of "critical".).I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me15:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is significant coverage of the Deluxe version in the article, along with charting & sourcing independent of the original. There is also a different charting single on the Deluxe version.WidgetKidthis is the way23:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JayCubby, This was uploaded under non-free use out of caution as the archive does not explicitly state a public-domain licence. I agree it may qualify under PD-anon-70-EU, and I’m fine with it being relicensed and moved to Commons if that’s the consensus.Aeengath (talk)18:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This image is of a person still alive. The person is serving a life sentence, still. The source link is dead. It has no fair use rationale and nothing to indicate a fair use license.Babin Mew (talk)04:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of people who have life sentences are kept because the same rationale applies as to a dead person. Needs to have that added, though.PARAKANYAA (talk)10:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Falls below threshold of originality. Graph is a non-creative representation of the data generated by the pulsar. Color inversion and scaling are not enough to create new copyright.Based5290 :3 (talk)09:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A move to Cmmons is likely lead to deletion there. "This is the cover art for Unknown Pleasures by the artist Joy Division. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Factory Records, or the graphic artist(s), Peter Saville." suggests it wll failc:COM:PCP. Far better to resolve this here locally. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸05:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement on the file page "Author: Natalie Heroux. I madet this picture. He belongs to me." may well explain how this picture uploaded here has been made. However artefacts in the upload suggest a scan or other reproduction of an original picture. This casts doubt on the ownership of the copyright which is easy enough to resolve -WP:VRT will work with the uploader to validate copyright ownership. I believe that, without VRT validation, this picture may not remain here, certainly under this licence. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meetWP:NFCC1 "no free equivalent" - this image shows a smaller freighter and a larger freighter interacting. I'm sure this happens relatively often in many parts of the world, doesn't require a volunteer chartering a helicopter in a remote part of the world as the justification claims. Additionally, this can be fairly easily described in text - the image isn't crucial for understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC8 "contextual significance").Consigned (talk)23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I couldn't find a Commons image of two ore freighters interacting like this. I can see how this illustrates what's described in the article, but linkage between text and supporting image could be stronger.WidgetKidchat me16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why listing this cover art rather than tag it for speedy deletion? Already did that on the other now-deleted image when I uploaded the label in 2021.George Ho (talk)08:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Verify the copyright status of these UK images. They're already Public Domain in the US.
I had listed it before, but it was speedy kept because one of these files was in the main page one day. He died in 1946. Verify if these works have other known authors.Candidyeoman55 (talk)16:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This audio sample does not satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria (NFCC). Most importantly, it fails NFCC#8, as its inclusion is not essential for readers to understand the article. The article’s prose already describes the lyric that was discussed by media sources; hearing it adds no encyclopedic value beyond what is conveyed in words.
The justification provided on the file description page (“Its lyrics… were noted by various websites. To help understand, this sample would like to be used…”) is unclear, grammatically incoherent, and does not constitute a valid contextual significance explanation under NFCC#10c. A non-free file must have a specific, sourced, critical reason for being included, not a vague statement that the lyrics were “noted by websites.”
Per WP:FILSAMPLE, song samples may be used only when they illustrate a musically or critically significant aspect of the song that cannot be adequately conveyed through text. That is not the case here; the sample is effectively decorative and nonessential.Sricsi (talk)16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Why should text reflecting (what is heard in) the audio sample be the primary reason to keep this file? Regardless, the Composition section itself is more about the lyrics themselves than the whole music. Furthermore, I'm doubtful that this (Cyrus's rich, gravelly vocals bolstered by features from Buckingham and Fleetwood) may reflect what is heard in the sample. I'm even doubtful that references to other influential artists, like David Byrne, reflect (the content of) the sample (itself). I would personally say Cyrus would sound almost likeStevie Nicks, but that'soriginal thinking, isn't it? (Oops... The policy doesn't apply to talk pages and discussions like this, does it?) Another thing is whether free text should suffice, but that's 50/50 among general population (especially to those who would treat text and recordingvery differently), huh?George Ho (talk)21:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"...her rich gravelly voice bolstered by features from Fleetwood Mac’s Lindsey Buckingham and Mick Fleetwood." -Harper's Bazaar. The sentence in article is fully supported by one of thereliable sources, thus I have no idea why you even are doubtful at this part; the lyrics in the audio sample is cited byOCC, notHarper's Bazaar. Also I cannot even further understand your comments: "I'm even doubtful that references to other influential artists, like David Byrne, reflect (the content of) the sample (itself). I would personally say Cyrus would sound almost like Stevie Nicks, but that's original thinking, isn't it? (Oops... The policy doesn't apply to talk pages and discussions like this, does it?)".Camilasdandelions (✉️)08:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: does Miley really sound like Buckingham and Fleetwood combined or something? Hard to tell. Miley's voice is low-pitched (really assumed that hers iscontralto until found out it ismezzo-soprano), while Buckingham's is moretenor-ish. What else am I missing? Or, maybethatthe sample makes me wanna research the difference between Cyrus and Buckingham more than I have realized.
(Honestly, not thrilled with audio samples. IMO, they tend to make text look "useless" to especiallylowest common denominator, but... that's my general opinion about them.)George Ho (talk)08:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC); clarified, 08:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC); fixed, 08:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can open a discussion about that in the article's talk page, not here. Here is for discussing the file's rationale, not for determining nor discussing Cyrus' vocals. You are being against with irrelevant sentence by using your own original research, even though the reliable source supports it.Camilasdandelions (✉️)00:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to be licensed correctly. Per the source,The University of California, as the Department of Energy contractor managing the historical image scanning project, has asserted a continuing legal interest in the digital versions of the images included in the NARA accession, and, accordingly, has stipulated that anyone intending to use any of these digital images for commercial purposes, including textbooks, commercial materials, and periodicals, must obtain prior permission from the University of California-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, through photo@lbl.gov..WidgetKidchat me15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towardmoving to Commons – As I see, it was previously considered non-free (old id). Upon evaluation, I can see just plain colors, lines and a circle forming together, and simple(?) shapes. By the way, how aboutWP:Twinkle software next time for FFD listings?George Ho (talk)09:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This logo was included in a video by the NFL's official Brazilian YouTube channel which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (seehere). It should thus be relicensed and moved to Commons.JohnCWiesenthal (talk)05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a strong argument for this to be considered below the threshold of originality. The football shape is the only aspect which could even remotely be considered more complex than a simple shape or text.42-BRT (talk)02:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL logo would certainly be eligible for copyright in "sweat of the brow/skill and labour" countries, but the US is not one of them. It's uncertain whether the NFL logo is eligible for copyright or not, the only way to find out is seeing the US Copyright Office's records. By the way, I previously listed this file for discussion, and the result was no consensus.Candidyeoman55 (talk)23:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The earliest I can see that this was created is 1946 according toReddit and percommons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland, terms run to the end of year meaning that this was copyrighted on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 by a literal goddamn year. The old 50 year term applies since it's not a photograph (and, to be clear, I think the retroactive nature is absolute BS). It's out of copyright in Poland, but not in the US because of blasted URAA. I could very well be missing something as I only checked online sources since I can't read Polish for offline sources, but I'm not confident enough to move this to Commons myself so I reverted my close. I also saw that there's a claim that the artist actually made this poster, but I couldn't find any kind of evidence towards this besides art resellers and those aren't reliable.Sennecaster (Chat)04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the song "Over You" was Oscar-nominated. Betty Buckley's version, featured in the film, can be heard in the sample, but I'm concerned about critical commentary being sufficient to justify use of this sample. Also, the sample itself makes me wonder whether ithelps reader fully contextualize the whole film... or one of the film's themes or whatever (WP:NFCC#8). After all, the topic is the film itself, not the Oscar-nominated song featured in the film. Furthermore, there's already another music sample (of another song) (WP:NFCC#3a). Is one sample insufficient to help readers contextualize (the music... or soundtrack of) the film?George Ho (talk)07:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the primary contributor who brought this article to FA status. The use of these clips was reviewed and approved by consensus during the FAC, where NFCC compliance is scrutinized more closely than at most other instances. (In fact, I don't believe the clips were on the page when I started the FAC, and in fact were addedduring that review in response to editor suggestions). While I know consensus can change, I would suggest removing long-standing, previously approved content requires a clear policy violation, not merely a different editorial judgment. In response to the policy arguments, the nominator citesWP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), but I respectfully interpretation is narrower than policy requires. WP:NFCC#8 does not require the clip to contextualize theentire topic, but rather must represent a notable aspect of the topic, which significantly increases the readers' understanding of that topic. The topic here is the filmTender Mercies, and "Over You" as performed by Betty Buckley is not incidental to that topic. It is an Oscar-nominated song writtenfor the film, not an existing song simply dropped into the movie. Buckley's performance is diegetic and central to the film’s emotional and thematic core (faith, grief, artistic expression, restraint). The clip illustrates the film's restrained and naturalistic approach to music, the way songs function narratively (not merely as soundtrack), and the performance style that critics singled out when discussing the film. I believe all this falls within whatWP:NFCC#8 allows, illustrating a notable aspect of the film that cannot be conveyed adequately through text alone. With regard toWP:NFCC#3a, the policy requires "minimal use," not a specific restriction of "one per article," so the presence of another music sample doesn't automatically violate that policy. Each sample illustrates a different musical function in the film. The Duvall clip illustrates music as a form of internal self-expression and redemption for the protagonist, while the Buckley clip illustrates music as an external emotional and spiritual anchor, embodied through her voice (a key casting and thematic element of the film). Each clip demonstrates a distinct musical function within Tender Mercies, and together they significantly increase readers' understanding of how music operates narratively and thematically in the film. Removing either would materially reduce that understanding. (Apologies for the lengthy response. LOL) —HunterKahn14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about facts only: who sang, who wrote, award, who re-sang; information describing the musical composition — how it sounds, etc. — is completely absent. It's not evenWP:NFCC#8, it's NFCC#1, since it's fully replaceable by text. Furthermore, the audio fragment exceeds thepermitted length. — Ирука1308:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll just await the results of this discussion then. I was asking the latter because... well, the "Keep" vote by the uploader has the lengthier rationale.George Ho (talk)12:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete underc:COM:PACKAGING. The name of the vineyard is just trademarked, but the logo is covered by copyright. Since the photo solely of the wine bottle, I don't think{{De minimis}} applies.
Keep Neither the bottle nor the text are copyrightable in the United States (see Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.). Only the logo is. However, this falls underCOM:De minimis #3; we would like to photograph the bottle and the text on the label, but the logo is an element which cannot easily be avoided in trying to depict the non-copyrightable elements. Not sure on how this fares under French copyright law (or if we need to consider that at all)Based5290 :3 (talk)07:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not appear to comply with thenon-free content criteria, specifically: Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding; Image/logo is not the object ofsourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); — Ирука1310:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use rationale is pretty clear. No way of replacing this with free content, and a textual description is not sufficient. Not sure how a screenshot of the object of discussion on the article is "primarily for decorative purposes".–DMartin(talk)10:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – On one hand, the screenshot may help readers visualize and contextualize what the video game is (supposed to be). On the other hand, this article is still in a "stub" mode, and there's a poster or cover art identifying the topic in question. Perhaps someone or others should expand the articleBlack Panther (video game) further.George Ho (talk)08:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a Holocaust memorial located in the Ukraine taken by the uploader. The licensing for the photo itself is fine, but the copyright status of the memorial isn't clear. After discussing this with the uploader atUser talk:Mahtin#File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, the uploader added a{{PD-UA-exempt}} license for the monument, but I'm not sure that license applies in this case. There's only limitedfreedom of panorama in the Ukraine perc:COM:FOP Ukraine, which places restrictions on commerical reuse; so, I don't think this file that can be kept as currently licensed, at least with respect to the monument. Sometimes in cases like this a non-free license can be added for the photographed work, but that can't really be done here because ofWP:NFCC#9 (the image is currently being used in a userspace draft). If others can figure out a way to keep this file, then great; othereise, I think it needs to be deleted if the consent of the copyright holder of the monument can't be obtained. --Marchjuly (talk)08:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only thing that gives me pause is the 'M' - I don't think that's a standard font being used, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make it copyrightable. I'd err on the side of caution and leave it as-is. I am also going to find a better version, since the quality is making my eye twitch.WidgetKidchat me16:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has never (at least to my knowledge) been a consensus that states cover art from another country can't be used. The above user George Ho has a LONG history of taking it upon himself to remove cover art and replace it with a generic piece of vinyl. I think most people would agree that the cover art is more recognizable than a generic piece of vinyl and a google search confirms as such being that the German / Dutch cover art appears much more frequently. Being that there is no such consensus as of now and being that both the cover art and the vinyl are both non-free images anyway, is there a way to stop Mr/ Ho's "aggressiveness" for lack of a better word when it comes to these?Beast from da East (talk)00:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
think most people would agree that the cover art is more recognizable than a generic piece of vinyl and a google search confirms as such being that the German / Dutch cover art appears much more frequently. Did you use the "-wiki" to exclude results from Wikipedia? Most likely the German/Dutch cover art Wikipedia would appear on Google results. Or probably fromMichaelJackson.com, managed by the Estate. Also, have you been referring to today's audience who have nowadays expected a cover art representing a single? Or which other audience? Honestly, I'm unsure whether "most people" you've been referring to have any history concept of how single releases had been manufactured and distributed in the pre-CD era.George Ho (talk)06:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there was a period of time where cover art for singles was not prevalent, especially in the United States. In that case, a piece of vinyl would suffice, but if there is legit, official cover art that has been officially been released by the record label, be it in the U.S. or some other country, then I feel that it should be used, as that is MOST commonly used to identify a single or album.Beast from da East (talk)06:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One question: When you inserted cover arts you uploaded, why either have you removed or haven't you added captions identifying (a portion of) a specific edition? (see that diff I already provided andthis diff.)George Ho (talk)06:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly an oversight. Some singles/album articles have a caption but most don't and I'm kind of used to the latter. In the case you mentioned, a caption would probably have been bestBeast from da East (talk)09:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if this discussion is still ongoing or not, but that is my official vote. Even the artist's official website uses the German/Dutch cover art as the de facto image in regards to the single itself. I think it's best to keep the art when applicable regardless of country of origin as long as it's officially released by the label.Beast from da East (talk)04:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
!VRT hat on. The ticket did not explicitly confirm the file, this was not on Commons at the time of the official ticket confirmation. Fwiw you'll get a faster answer atWP:VRTN for this kind of thing, not many VRT agents patrol FFD for discussions.Relicense to NFC or email for permission on new files/all Lasse Haile works.Sennecaster (Chat)23:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file is aderivative work incorporating another work or works. While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work(s). — Ирука1307:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука1310:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"According toCopyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука1310:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public".Underwaterbuffalo (talk)06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP.Traumnovelle (talk)20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13 Is it a good idea to argue this while you are indefinitely blocked from editing filespace? Your block is precisely due to exactly this behavior by you.
Note: @Iruka13 might be technically allowed to comment here, but in my opinion her comment (and any !votes by her) should not be counted as votes while she is banned for this behavior. See the ANI in my previous reply.David10244 (talk)01:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no freedom of panorama in the US for 2d artworks, while yes images of this building appear on Commons they are on Commons perWP:DEMINIMIS, this image however does not meet that standard in my opinion as the angle primarily covers the artwork and not the building.Traumnovelle (talk)20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only because it has correct tags currently. De minimis would not apply here - the very title of the image states its focus on the mural.Sennecaster (Chat)04:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify deleting this and I'm having a really hard time.Leicester v. Warner Bros. clearly established that architectural details (which stained glass windows obviously are) are allowable under US freedom of panorama. You seem to agree with that. OK so far. But you think because pre-1990 buildings in the US had NO copyright protections that the windows (which we agree are an integral component of the building) somehow magically gain stricter copyright protections and lack the freedom of panorama than they would have had if they had been created if they were built post-1990 because ofLeicester v. Warner Bros.? There is no case law, statute, or legal principle which would suggest such a thing. It defies all common sense.IronGargoyle (talk)03:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle that is perClindberg's insights on the undeletion request. Butdo note that this isnot a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA isnot retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed). Thus, its US copyright was restored throughUruguay Round Agreements Act. Do note theLeicester ruling relied on AWCPA, which isnot retroactive. Pre-1990 buildings are PD under US law, yes,but any associated architectural art embedded within (stained glass for example) are bound for the pre-1990 rules.JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And again, US FoPonly applies to post-1990 US buildings. All pre-1990 buildings are public domain. Concerning the attached artworks, only post-1990 architectural art elements can be freely reproduced throughLeicester ruling, citing AWCPA. AWCPAdoes not cover pre-1990 ones, and therefore common pre-1990 US copyright rules cover those architectural elements. Foreign elements, like this Philippine stained glass, are unfree courtesy of URAA.JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see you are extrapolating this bizarre theory from an offhand comment by Clindberg which does not have any supportive evidence behind it. I am well aware that it is not a US work, but we are following US law on English Wikipedia. You bring up URAA, but URAA does not restore copyright on this building (as buildings were not copyrightable in the US in 1954) and this window is an integral part of said building. Of course AWCPA is not retroactive. AWCPA is what gives post 1990 buildings their copyright protection. If AWCPA was retroactive, US buildings prior to 1990 would have copyright. The main finding ofLeicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did notrely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and thatis retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.IronGargoyle (talk)05:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re-license as non-free by default, especially if "no consensus" at the end – Without clearer and consistent interpretation, hard to tell whether the depicted subject is free to use at this time, despite the photo's copyright status (as the photo itself, not the building or stained window). The "Keep" votes probably assumed this is a deletion discussion somehow... right?George Ho (talk)11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation ofLeicester v. Warner Bros. holds here.IronGargoyle (talk)04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said this:
do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed).
Even if there's hesitancy to enforce URAA, being a non-US work plays a factor here. However, the stained windows have been still part of the building made before 1990. Perhaps an international law also plays factor in this. Oh... Realized just now that it's part of a Philippine church. In the Philippines, buildings may lackfreedom of panorama (c:COM:FOP Philippines).
Unsure why you're citing the case, which the nom said:
The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.
@George Ho I base this on thenon-applicability of theLeicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again,Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which isnot applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of@Clindberg:'s reasoning atc:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate thenon-applicability ofLeicester for pre-1990 elements.JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed{{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred beforeLeicester v. Warner Bros.IronGargoyle (talk)08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice:Do not use this template on copyrighted public artworks (like statues, sculptures, and murals)! If you're gonna treat the stained glass windows like merely part of the building/ architecture, then I can't stop you. Nonetheless, hard to take the view into consideration when the windows have exquisite artwork with enough originality to garner some protection (as an artwork), especially in the Philippines.
Also, being tagged as "FOP-USonly" shouldn't prevent the file from being (re)licensed as non-free, should it, even when the photographer released the photo into the "public domain"?George Ho (talk)09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what{{FoP-USonly}} andLeicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free becauseit is free under US law in its current 2D form.IronGargoyle (talk)18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resembleWP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.)George Ho (talk)18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mentionWP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent toLeicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out withevidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright.I worry that [what I perceive to be] JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images (particularly from the Phillipines) may sometimes cross over intoownership tendencies and produce a tendency to latch onto any novel argument that would seemingly justify further opportunities to delete architectural images. The problem is that the argument here does not actually pass legal muster.IronGargoyle (talk)11:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to thelex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided.JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that I framed the statement as being my interpretation of your behavior and my own personal opinions and worries. Maybe the first part of the statement was framed as being overly a statement of fact as opposed to just representing my opinion. I apologize for not framing it more as a statement of my opinion. To correct that, I have clarified the statement above with brackets. Given George Ho's query about I why I don't believe the opinion of multiple editors (after making clear that I did notdisregard it out of hand), I did feel that the scope and history of your nominations of files I have uploaded was important to address, but in retrospect the statements you highlight are probably off-topic enough to not be helpful here. I have struck it.IronGargoyle (talk)14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a background, from theLeicester case text:[The district court] declined to construe the 1990 amendments as Leicester urged, to leave intact the previously authorized protection for sculptural works that were "conceptually separable" from the building of which they are a part, concluding instead that the intent of Congress was to substitute the new protection afforded architectural works for the previous protection sometimes provided under the conceptual separability test for nonutilitarian sculptures (such as gargoyles and stained glass windows) incorporated into a work of architecture. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Warner Bros. Leicester has timely appealed. Before 1990, architectural works were not given any protection at all. To allow some protection of artistic works attached to buildings, it was generally recognized that "conceptually separable" works did get protection. The 1990 law giving protection to architectural works changed that; Leicester was arguing that the older protections should still exist in addition to the new architectural work protection, but the courts decided that was not the case. However, since pre-1990 buildings are still not protected at all, so that "conceptually separable" logic should still hold for older buildings. That is a bit fuzzier for foreign buildings though -- the window would have been PD immediately due to publication without notice. The URAA could have restored that, but did it restore the architectural work too? The wording of U.S. law however does not seem to apply the architectural copyright to pre-1990 buildings anywhere, but rather gives restored works the protection they would have had in the U.S. had they not fallen into the public domain. For a "conceptually separable" stained glass window (the court even named that specifically as an example of conceptually separable) on a pre-1990 construction, it seems like it would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. The text of the court case has a lot of discussion, referencing the House Report on the 1990 law which recognized the previously-available conceptually separable protection -- with somewhat ambiguous discussion there, which the court had to decide. Not sure I can find a copy of that online. Note that there was another case where a mural was added to a building later on; that was not considered as part of the architectural work.Carl Lindberg (talk)19:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding ofLeicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it.IronGargoyle (talk)08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protectionreplaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? Theoriginal law (section 706) towards the end, says:The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date.Carl Lindberg (talk)14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle fromLeicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it.IronGargoyle (talk)18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The legal principle fromLeicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection wasreplaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states:Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states:If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. TheHouse Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned:A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses arede minimis orincidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed.Carl Lindberg (talk)15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildingswhile still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted inLeicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found inLeicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for architectural PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was forall architectural PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are stillarchitectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you thinkmight be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there iszero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest.IronGargoyle (talk)20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congress did not want the new architectural protection to inhibit existing practices of photographing buildings, from when buildings had no protection at all. "Conceptually separable" works were fully blessed by Congress to have protection. They made no pronouncements on freedom of panorama in general; they were more concerned about the new types of works gaining protection. The AWCPA was ambiguous on whether conceptually separable works still get the older PGS protections, or the new ones.Leicester pretty much answered that, in that separable works which are "part of" the architectural works got the architectural protection, and the 17 USC 120(a) limitations that went with them. That cannot have possibly affected anything earlier, as 17 USC 120(a) explicitly can only apply to architecture completed since 1990. Congress did nothing to change the status of existing works. I'm not making this up only by reading the law -- this has been stated by others, though having trouble finding the references at the moment. But it makes sense given that the 17 USC 120(a) is theonly section of law limiting photographs of works, and that cannot bee applied to earlier works. Secondly, some other court cases have limited the scope ofLeicester a little bit, in that simply being attached to a building does not make it "part of" it. One example isFalkner V. General Motors LLC, which was about a mural painting on an already-completed parking garage. They ruled the mural was not "part of" the architectural work, and is protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The parties settled after that ruling. So "part of" does mean integrated in some way, particularly at the time of construction. Before 1990, architecture was not protected at all, so photographing them was fine, mostly. You could photograph separable works if you were photographing the whole building, but photos which focused on those separable works were still a problem. Congress was mostly trying to keep that status quo, and presumably has no issue with theLeicester ruling. But they only altered the protection where other works are "part of" the architectural work -- not for works like the above mural, which are not "part of" the architectural work, and not for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an "architectural work" to be "part of" in the first place.Carl Lindberg (talk)04:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How strange that you can't find these statements by others supposedly supporting your argument. I think that the last statement in your reply perfectly sums up the absurdity of this line of reasoning: "for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an 'architectural work'". In US law these objects were not copyrightable, but they are and were a meaningful class of work and the main finding ofLeicester v. Warner Bros. would certainly apply to pre-1990 architecturally-integral PGS works per the common sense interpretation of congressional intent and court findings I outline above. I will finally add that theFalkner V. General Motors LLC citation has zero relevance here. That case is about a mural. No one is arguing that murals are architecturally integral works. Stained glass windows are. The consensus and longstanding practice on Commons is that murals are deleted and architecturally integral elements are kept where US law applies.IronGargoyle (talk)16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted. Honestly, coat of arms isn't my expertise, especially as an average reader. Nonetheless, I can't help wonder how well participated this discussion has been, contrary to the more crowded DRV. This makes me think that omitting this actual logo would devastate readers and deprive readers from learning which coat of arms is real or fake. Really wish those DRV participants re-participate in this discussion...George Ho (talk)06:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articleCoat of arms of Canada goes into great detail about official renditions of the arms, and it seems clear to me that a user-generated rendition would not serve the same purpose. Nothing has really changed since the last discussion.MediaKyle (talk)12:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by a comment atWT:VEX)Delete not that I think it will matter much. Despite some confusion above this is not alogo but aCoat of Arms that is defined by aBlazon, with anyEmblazonment that conforms to that written description being equallyheraldicly correct (and not in factfake?).
I'm also not seeing any text at theCoat of arms of Canada that actually requires the presence of this NFCC, over thefree content version (the only mention of the "official rendition" is in sentence likeThe leaves were later redrawn in official depictions in 1957 with the current colour to be in line with the official colours of Canada andwith mantling of white and red, stylized in the official version to look like maple leaves both features inthe sodacan emblazonment).
Finally,If the "royal" (fake?) coat of arms is used, then backlash would be resulted [sic] is not, as far as I can remember, an actual reason to retainNFC (please correct me if I'm wrong).Cakelot1 ☞️talk09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We know its not free, its written there. Its under fair use rationale. I didnt't get what changed there from your last response. NZ request is even more obscure and doesnt adress any issues solved previously at closed requests.ThecentreCZ (talk)23:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the official version which is under Canadian crown copyright. Regarding the absence of the coat of arms onCanada article's infobox, if the Canadian state took Wikipedia to court, there would be "office actions" by the Wikimedia Foundation.Candidyeoman55 (talk)19:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according toGlane23 the file has been lacking suitable VRT permission since March 2024, there has been more than enough time for this issue to be resolved. I'm not sure what a reasonable timeline for VRT issues is but with no backlog and this being almost 2 years unresolved it is longer overdue.Traumnovelle (talk)20:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle; Out of the very small group of admins checking FfD with VRT permission access, we're way more likely to act as a VRT agent and weigh into the discussion over closing the discussion. Once you get a response from VRTN, it shouldn't be necessary to have an admin with VRT permissions close FfDs like this. I'm not annoyed, to be clear, but just something to keep in mind since the bus factor is pretty low.
@The Hammer of Thor; I'm not able to disclose details without the permission of the ticket owner, but a question was sent that received no response.Independently of all of this, I have accepted the statement. The question was not necessary for the validation process.
The ticket infrastructure for images is very shoddy on enwiki.Please ping me if there is a move to Commons so I can correct information as soon as possible.Sennecaster (Chat)05:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The permission given is valid now, yes. I have added templates as best as I can to the file, which you can view (and also changed the permission templates to match the ticket details).Sennecaster (Chat)06:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me, in English, what's the problem with ticket #2024031910003125? I know the photographer personally. Mr. Farver sent the email release to Wikimedia, and forwarded the number to me, which I attached to the upload. -The Hammer of Thor (talk)05:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some comparanda here: yes, all the individual elements are simple and geometric, but there are many of them and at first glance I'd say the arrangement represents creative work. I wouldn't be confident in saying it's below TOO.UndercoverClassicistT·C10:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to list more remaining screenshots of theLaw & Order cast, but then, after deletion of two other images, I guess I don't mind deletion (of all the above) if no one else opposes such, especially perWP:NFCC#3a and/orWP:NFCC#8. Otherwise, at least one shall remain if someone favors whichever.George Ho (talk)21:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've yet to list the cast of season one. I might... or might not after this discussion, but let's concentrate on the ones listed here first, especially to contrast with the very first season. —George Ho (talk)06:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If at least one must be kept, I'm thinking season six cast and/or season twenty-five cast for now, though I'm unsure whether either of them has been popular amongst most viewers, especially casual and hardcore. Otherwise, (again) I don't mind all deleted. —George Ho (talk)04:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the image is used to illustrate thecast but free images of the cast can be created and I think most of these actors have free images regardless.Traumnovelle (talk)20:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: You're not thinking individual photos of cast members, are you? It's been attempted to death. Look atFriends: dunno who reintroduced a gallery of free photos, but a non-free image was pushed down some time after an FFD discussion on it. BTW,Jerry Orbach has been deceased since 2004, i.e. for at least twenty-one years. The least we can do is a group photo-op of surviving cast members, right? Otherwise, how do we place such free images of those cast members appearing on the series?George Ho (talk)20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this group since the uploader doesn't mind the deletions of the rest. I'm open to keeping the season one cast photo, especially since free images of Jerry Orbach are pretty hard/near impossible to find. Side note: merits of the free collage vs an NFC image aside, that cast gallery onFriends has awful formatting, so I hope if people pick to go with galleries that they take more care than that implementation.Sennecaster (Chat)05:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to keeping the season one cast photo, especially since free images of Jerry Orbach are pretty hard/near impossible to find.
Orbach's character debuted in season three; he wasn't a permanent cast member in season one. What about the season six cast screenshot, which contains Orbach there?George Ho (talk)05:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I don't really know anything about Law & Order, so if we pick the season with the highest overall rating or viewership and want to keep that cast image, I'm fine with that. If you think Season 6 is the most representative of the show in terms of cast, then keep that one for now and delete the rest.Sennecaster (Chat)05:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh....the twelfth season's average viewership is still the highest to this date at its time of original broadcast (seeLaw & Order#Broadcast history). That means I should create a cast screenshot of Orbach, Martin, Rohm, and Waterson from season twelve... orthirteen... orfourteen, especially since neither Wiest nor Thompson appear as a cast ensemble walking and chatting.
Of course,the eleventh season was nearly high but still below the twelfth's, but it still has almost the same cast ensemble but with a different female cast member. Unfortunately, I uploaded the screenshots because I want readers to fully grasp various cast changes over the years, but I didn't wanna upload one too many.
Going for the highest-rated season would mean eliminating season one, which has different cast members and didn't have Orbach there.... right? I.e. replacing the season one image with a season 12/13/14 one. Would that do?George Ho (talk)05:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sixth season may not have had the highest average viewership to this date, but it was the first season not to display the original cast members walking and talking in one scene. Of course, I'm torn between what the context should be and selecting a season with the highest average viewership. One of reboot seasons shows that the reboot fully abandoned the walking/talking tradition and went for somegreen screen/graphics-intensive way.George Ho (talk)06:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... This is tricky, and it's getting late for me. My instinct in this all is to defer to you since I don't have familiarity with the media, and from your explanation season 6 seems like the one that provides a balance of context and being sufficiently recognizable. I wonder, could we have a cast article for Law & Order to show all of the changes and provide nice galleryspam in an agreeable way, or would that be more of a fanwiki thing...Sennecaster (Chat)06:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's expanded comment – After talk with Sennecaster, as I'm realizing, the season six image is the best of this nominated group to represent (the context of what) the series (is about) and its cast... but to also contrast with season one's cast. Maybe I don't mind the "delete" on the season six image, but then the context would change if that image is deleted. Also, season twenty-five is much, much different. Personally, I'd like to keep the season twenty-five image, but I don't mind one "delete" vote on it either. Well, I thought about replacing season 25 image with a good cast screenshot ofthe twenty-first season, the very first season of the reboot era. Otherwise,the twenty-third season—the very first season without Waterson... well, halfway/midway of it—would be a better alternative candidate. Nonetheless, I dunno a better representation of the Waterson-less reboot cast than season 25. Indeed, one of season 23 images would provide the same context as the season 25 one... or season 24. Of course, there are other images of cast members portraying a DA, likeSteven Hill, but most of them appear onGetty Images, and there's no other way to display Hill as part of a cast ensemble without violatingWP:GETTY.George Ho (talk)07:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The cast ensemble scene of the season 19/20 opening is part of the last season of the series's first iteration. Well, I'm undecided whether that screenshot of the cast is necessary, but the reboot/second iteration changed the ensemble part of opening credits. Still undecided, so I don't mind the season 19/20 image being deleted, though I can't help wonder whether readers would know when the producers exactly changed from traditional actual in-person ensemble scene to ickygreen screen effects of the cast ensemble.George Ho (talk)08:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
(Note: in the event Lilly passes away without having a free photo of her on wikipedia post-transition, I would support restoring this file.) ―Howard •🌽3310:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, I have found out that both the images are from Getty Images, which makes them eligible for speedy deletion perWP:F7. ―Howard •🌽3311:10, 8 February 2026 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Firstly, a direct link to an archive of a once-Geocities-hosted image is woefully insufficient to even verify the image is what it depicts, much less meet the requirements ofWP:NFCC. Secondly, if we can prove its provenance, it's possible that the original work could fall underTemplate:PD-US-1978-89; however, I've been unable to prove its legitimacy, much less its possible public-domain status. —Fourthords |=Λ= |14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "Tropang 5G" wordmark is just simple text with a few streak lines. In my opinion, this may not reach the TOO and itcould belong in Commons. Not sure about the TNT logo, but it already has aCommons file.MarcusAbacus (talk)02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
There is reason to believe this file is actually free, at least in the US.
The five cartoons on the thumbnails are by Carlos Latuff. Latuff has released the copyright to his cartoons perhere.
The WikiLeaks logo was released under a free license perhere.
The map screenshot is from OpenStreetMap, which is freely licensed perhere.
Other than the above, the web design itself consists of simple shapes and short excerpts of text.
Due to a lack of clarity about where the website is currently hosted, the file should not be moved to Commons. Rather, it should be marked as a free file on enwiki and have its file size set to normal rather than minimized. ―Howard •🌽3314:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the bottom left Wikileaks logo may not be free, as I could not find a free license for it. This may need to be censored if the file is set to free. ―Howard •🌽3314:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Empirically, the smallest important part of the image (the seizure-light patterns on the small TV screens) is legible at 100K-pixel resolution (about 387x258, or 53% current width). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)21:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File is not necessary to understand the subject, and can be replaced by a free photo if someone takes one (e.g. of the school). CCTV photos are not required to understand the stabbing. Fails theWP:NFCC due to not substantially enhancing the reader's understanding of the article and replacability.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:NFCC#3 and possiblyWP:NFCC#8. The copyrighted image of Nancy Guthrie is already a separate file in the article, and this reuse is not necessary. The other images are from a PD video in the article, and the info in the text can easily be incorporated in the article if necessary.Sign² (talk)00:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI did not create that family photo of Nancy, so that's not in the public domain. I also don't see why someone would upload copyrighted content twice.V. S. Video (talk)18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't the portion of the image that is copyright small enough to qualify for fair use even when the FBI image is 1,033 × 804 ? 21:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Fails NFCC #3, and #8. Doesn't significantly contribute to article contents, where the current team logo is already displayed on infobox.Fma12 (talk)09:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These two non-free images are too similar to another non-free image,File:Thepoison.jpg, varying only in color shading. That means the images are too close to each other for NFCC #4 "Content" and NFCC #8 "Contextual significance". Having two or three similar cover images in the same page violates NFCC #3 "Minimal usage". That means we have no good rationale to host these two extra images.Binksternet (talk)16:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This person went missing a few days ago. Even is she is dead, it looks likeWP:NFCI says that we could only "ever" use a picture such as this if "obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". This person has multiple living relatives, so it is possible that one of them could release an image of her if they so wish.Her daughter, for example, has uploaded a number of images of her (Nancy) on Instagram. As far as I understand,WP:NFCCP#1 does not allow us to upload copyrighted images of anyone simply because no free alternative isimmediately available.V. S. Video (talk)18:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===February 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
Comment: A move to Cmmons is likely lead to deletion there. "This is the cover art for Unknown Pleasures by the artist Joy Division. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Factory Records, or the graphic artist(s), Peter Saville." suggests it wll failc:COM:PCP. Far better to resolve this here locally. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸05:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WidgetKidchat me16:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2026%2bFebruary%2b3%2523File%253AThis%2bIs%2bActing%2b%2528Deluxe%2bEdition%2529%2b%2528Official%2bAlbum%2bCover%2529%2bby%2bSia.png%255D%255D){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
_(Official_Album_Cover)_by_Sia.png){kind=link}
-20260126174700-File%3aStar_Tours_Logo.svg){kind=link}
-20260126174800-File%3aSpaceship_Earth_Epcot_Logo.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2026%2bFebruary%2b7%2523File%253AOh%2bYeah%2521%2b%2528KC%2band%2bthe%2bSunshine%2bBand%2balbum%2b-%2bcover%2bart%2529.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_owned_by_Mario_Mencingar.jpg){kind=link}
_owned_by_Mario_Mencingar.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2026%2bFebruary%2b13%2523File%253ATulloch%2bcarriage%2b%2528formerly%2529%2bowned%2bby%2bMario%2bMencingar.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
_owned_by_Mario_Mencingar.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
_owned_by_Mario_Mencingar.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
_owned_by_Mario_Mencingar.jpg){kind=link}
