Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 7

September 7

File:Shakira self-titled 2014 album expanded edition artwork.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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC) This is an alternate version of File:Shakira - Shakira (2014).png for the expanded edition of Shakira's 2014 self-titled album. The differences are very minor. 81.79.96.215 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#3. One version of this image is enough. This doesn't differ significantly from the standard cover, and the text in Shakira (album) § Release and promotion explaining that the guitar is red can be easily understood without illustration. hinnk (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not tagged for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this cover is substantially the same as the standard cover and the difference can be conveyed with text so fails WP:NFCC#1. At first glance, the description of the second cover appears to be source, but the provided source makes no mention of the alternate cover and discusses only the standard cover. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it’s necessary for the article to have both artworks since the expanded edition one is the one available internationally whereas the standard one is mainly available in the US. Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two are recognizably the same with only colouring differences. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Whpq was saying, we probably shouldn't be keeping two versions if they're nearly identical. Looking at the album's listings on MusicBrainz and Discogs, I definitely see copies of the "standard cover" that were released outside the U.S., in Europe, Mexico, and Japan. It seems like both received international releases, but the expanded edition superseded the standard one on some online platforms. Does that sound correct to you? hinnk (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2024 (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:Goth Babe on Lola.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair use, as the artist is still alive (or was at least last night). I will upload a public domain image from the photos I took. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as replaceable (already replaced and now unused). @Pbritti: For future reference, clearly-replaceable fair use images can be deleted under WP:F7. If you've replaced it with a free image and it's no longer used on any articles, WP:F5 also applies. (See a previous discussion on when FfD is necessary.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: Thank you! I haven't spent much time in the world of fair-use files besides some recent uploads, so the primer is handy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2024 (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:Id Software.svg

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: Status quo. Current logo is current. -Fastily 02:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

id has an older logo that is below the threshold of originality but still similar to the current one. ~~It's still used for some titles, particularly the Doom rereleases.~~ Would it make sense to replace the non-free logo with the simpler one? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a logo last used 27 years ago be used to represent a currently active company? I wouldn't be opposed to including the old logo in the article body, but replacing the active logo (in use for the past 27 years) is nonsense. IceWelder [✉] 17:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I made a mistake. It turns out id doesn't use the old logo anymore as Google was giving me the cover art for the original releases. However, I do wonder if the current logo is PD as well. For example, the Cyberpunk 2077 logo was denied registration by the U.S. Copyright Office despite having special effects. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2024 (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:Gerhard von Rad.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 result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free, remove from Faculty of Theology, University of Göttingen -Fastily 02:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as {{PD-URAA}}, but its author died in 1971, so it was still copyrighted in Germany 24 years later on the URAA date. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as non-free on the subject's page and remove elsewhere: It seems to me the subject died in 1951, rather than the author. In any case, I don't see any way this could possibly have been PD in Germany before 2022, 70 years after creation. Thus it will be copyrighted in the US until at least 2046, if not longer (should it not have been published in 1951).

However, I can't find any free alternatives (and in particular the German Wikipedia does not have an image either, despite a rather in-depth article). So, it should be possible to relicense this image as a non-free biographical image for use as identification on the subject's page. Felix QW (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as non-free and remove outside the Gerhard von Rad article. Am I reading the source info wrong, because it looks to me like the actual author is unknown and the source is von Rad's estate? All we seem to know is that it was taken in 1951 but not published then, the subject of the photo died in 1971, and it was published within 70 years of creation. In that case, it'd be public domain in the U.S. 95 years after its first publication date (which we don't seem to have), and since it's a German work, Commons won't accept it unless the author is identified or it's PD-old-assumed-expired in 2071. hinnk (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2024 (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:Commercial Mole.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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is used in two articles, Mayordomo and Mole (sauce). In Mayordomo, it seems decorative at most ("Two varieties of Mayordomo mole"), two prepared dishes would be a better example. Additionally, File:Chocolate mayordomo oaxaca.jpg, or its cropped version, are better options to illustrate the sold products. In Mole, it reads "Jars of commercially available mole negro and mole rojo, as sold in Oaxaca, Mexico". I don't find it particularly relevant to meet the NFC criteria. File:Mole Powder (8265482961).jpg might be a better alternative. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:32, 7 September 2024 (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.