Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Total
CfD	39	39
TfD	13	13
MfD	7	7
FfD	1	1
RfD	85	85
AfD	9	9

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 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 the non-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 to deletion review.

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, 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.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria 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 without rationale 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:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 March 3}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. 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 use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 March 3}}` 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=2025 March 3}}` 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 in bold 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.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold 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 a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
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 at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw 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 more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

February 19

File:1928–29 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg

[edit]

This file looks like it would have been published in the 1929 edition of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign yearbook. I think the hidden version can be undeleted and moved to Commons. Brought to FfD rather than requests for undeletion because a review thinks there is no evidence of publication before 1930. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & mark as PD I think it's pretty clear that it's a yearbook photo. Even if it was a standalone photo, it was clearly first published in 1929 in the US and that's clearly PD. AAAAAAAND even if it was 1930+, I see no evidence in copyright records of such a photo or yearbook registered & maintained as required. It's PD. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. No evidence of publication before 1930. No evidence that the photo was published after without copyright notice. — Ирука¹³ 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, this was very likely a yearbook photo. Lo and behold, that's exactly what it was. Clearly published before 1930. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Illio Yearbooks were published with a copyright prior to at least 1937 according to the US Copyright Office records. Buffs (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

February 24

File:Rinpa-style-ink-stone box.jpg

The subject of the photograph is in the public domain. The source, author, and therefore the licensing status of the photograph itself are unknown. The photo has already been removed from Commons. — Ирука¹³ 09:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep...crop the 2D art~~ According to tineye.com, this image first appeared on the internet in May 2021 at historyofyesterday.com [1]. The original image appears to be currently hosted at Medium.com. I am unconvinced of the Alamy copyright claim as they have had numerous claims of copyright for PD works, but it does appear the photo certainly had the capacity for copyright in total. 3D objects can be photographed in creative ways that attain their own copyright. While a car design cannot be copyrighted any more than a headlight (because they are functional, not art) and are PD, photos of such objects generally are considered copyrightable. While this appears to be more of a museum illustration, it certainly has the capacity to be copyrightable. I would suggest we crop the upper lid of the box with the artwork as a slavish 2D art representation (and therefore PD). The rest is indeed unusable unless we can better ascertain the validity of the copyright claims. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. Delete. That artwork is already hosted on commons as PD in exactly the manner described [2] Buffs (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main image was deleted. Undelete request? Saimmx (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeffrussolivepic.jpg

It is unclear that this image is legitimately Free. The lack of information about when and where the photo was taken and the lack of EXIF metadata cast doubt as to the uploader's ownership of the file. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no evidence the file is anything other than a user uploaded photo. Missing EXIF data is not evidence. I can find no evidence the file existed anywhere on the internet prior to its upload, there is no evidence the file belongs to someone else, and I have no reason to believe the uploader isn't the owner. Location and date are fine to have, but they are not required. If you have something else, I'm willing to change my mind. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
White corners indicate that this is a scanned image. The file can only be kept if the uploader confirms that the photo - not a scan - was taken by themself. — Ирука¹³ 10:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seventh Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Seventh Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons, such as c:File:Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred 1988 (filter balance).jpg, c:File:Sylvester McCoy Doctor.jpg, and c:File:Sylvester McCoy Doctor (cropped).jpg. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the image depicts McCoy in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying McCoy as the Seventh Doctor. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with image 3. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tenth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Tenth Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons under c:Category:Tenth Doctor. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depict Tennant in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying Tennant as the Tenth Doctor. Several are also shot while he is acting in-character. I have no preference as to an image choice, but several potential alternatives for images do exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with File:David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor in The End of Time.jpg DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eleventh Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Eleventh Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons, such as c:File:Matt Smith (series 7 filming).jpg, c:File:The Eleventh Doctor and Amy Pond.jpg, and if you want uncanny valley, c:File:Doctor Who Experience (8105543636).jpg. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depicts Smith in costume and in character as the Eleventh Doctor, while the image of the dummy depicting him resembles the character closely, and similar still models have been used before, such as at Dalek or Weeping Angel. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a cropped version of image 1, or with image 2. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fifteenth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, which determined the Twelfth Doctor image should be deleted per a free use alternative, this image of the Fifteenth Doctor has a free use alternative via several images present in Commons under c:Category:Fifteenth Doctor. Though they are behind the scenes photos, the images depict Gatwa in costume and in a manner that does not interfere with identifying Gatwa as the Fifteenth Doctor. There is additionally a video clip depicting the Fifteenth Doctor in character in Commons, which should suffice should the behind the scenes photos be deemed inadequate. No preference as to which photos would be preferable for use here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a screen-grab from File:Doctor Who Boom Clip.webm. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

February 25

File:Rosé - Gone (music video screenshot).png

Non-free media not explained or justified. The omission of the image would not harm a reader's understanding of the topic and therefore it fails WP:NFCC. The imagery in the picture is not subject to critical commentary. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find myself surprised by my own !vote/comment. Usually this sort of this thing is completely superfluous and has no references...but I was pleasantly surprised with 4 sources and paragraphs describing the scene(s) in question from the music video. I find the nominator's comments to be either intentionally misleading or copy-pasted from elsewhere without regard for content. There is significant critical commentary on the music video, NF media is both explained and justified, and it enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image enhances the reader's understanding of the topic and is relevant to the commentary provided in the article about the video. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulacan State University Student Lounge8.jpg

File of a sockpuppet of Florentino Floro under "Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs)" username, but there has been a community consensus to nuke all of his local uploads on enwiki, to not condone his acts of evading blocks on Commons. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I discussed this with the deleting admin, who admitted that the deletions were not on the merits and did not object to my re-importation of the files from Commons (as opposed to undeletion). Files were all in use at some point and many still are. The files were validly released with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license and so they are free to use by anyone. The only reason why they are not being hosted on Commons still is because they violated local freedom of panorama in the Philippines, but they are free to use on English Wikipedia via {{FoP-USonly}}. The nominator has repeatedly nominated files I have been importing from Commons for deletion (see my talk page and archives) and almost none of those nominated files have been deleted. This is making me feel like I'm being hounded. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle to clear some things up:
- the files from Commons are still the properties of Judge Floro sock, regardless of whoever made the imports. Right now, I have opened the discussion on Valenzuela400 sock's files on c:COM:AN to propose a similar move to nuke all of Valenzuela400's remaining uploads on Commons. IMO, all files found on enwiki under Valenzuela400 authorship need to be nuked, per logic of that discussion. Re: inuse files, even some inuse files were included in the deletion, like one that was used in Quezon City article.
- I need to look out for your local imports of PH buildings so that I can collect all local uploads at my userspace page (User:JWilz12345/PHL photos FoP). I created this userspace page so that I can easily facilitate the transfer of several files to Commons in the event FoP becomes introduced here, as well as tagging files with (soon-to-be) undeleted Commons versions with NowCommons tags. This was already my practice since around late 2020, during the time PH copyright authorities here were considering for FoP to be inserted in our copyright law. As seen in meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama/Progress, we still have some hopes to have FoP introduced here, despite challenges from a Congress which seems to ignore legislative bills containing FoP. Having a userspace page ensures easier way to facilitate files which should be moved or which whose Commons copies should be restored instead of moving local copy. Enwiki does not have a convenient way to track or sort FoP deletions unlike Commons, which easily sorts deletions through categorizations; that made me felt the urge to create this userspace page of mine in late 2020.
- Yeah, maybe some of the deletion requests I made to imports may have surprised you, but I am not acting in a rash manner; all of the discussions are based on questions on the applications of concepts like WP:NOTFILESTORAGE and the aforementioned discussion regarding Valenzuela400's photos. We all have different opinions and perspectives on these concepts. If the files ended up kept, then I'll add those files on my userspace page, which is simple. If I were a "rash user", then I would have nominated 50% of your uploads, which I didn't, considering the de facto WP:FOP practice. That's why I continue to add local imports to my userspace list, despite my dismay on our slow Congress of the Philippines. Our differing perspectives on concepts like those I mentioned above doesn't mean I am already acting like a rogue user.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of your nominations are just suspicious to me. For example, this earlier nomination came just hours after I turned down your request to help with your userspace project (I was actually helping until you started to nitpick my attempts to help). The present nomination came just hours after I called you out in the other FFD for removing a nominated file in favor of an image you favored instead. As for the rationale here, the logic of nuking in-use images just because they were originally created by a bad user doesn't hold water. I fully support blocking Judgefloro socks whenever they appear, because yeah, he adds a metric ton of crap, but there are some good images that he's uploaded too. There's no sense cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's why there is no automatic deletion of banned user contributions on Commons, and CSD G5 locally does not include cases where there are substantial contributions by another user. I would say that for a file, the fact that it was later uploaded by someone else (me) is a substantial contribution. It's not even Judgefloro's contribution any more really. It's my contribution of his freely-licensed image. What if he starts a Flickr? Would we not be allowed to bring in images from there because they were tainted in some way? Collateral damage should be avoided. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle

Regarding the earlier Philippine Arena image, it's all about our differences on which image must be retained and which may need to be removed because of quality issues. IMO, the arena image obscured by trees is already an issue on quality. BTW, the image was not kept as "kept", but as "no consensus" (in my perspective it's "soft keep" that doesn't favor either the side of the nominator or the defendant/s).

Re: nitpicking, I don't see my reminder on adding some details to file entries (like names of original uploaders and links to Commons deletion requests) as "nitpicking". It is crucial that there is an instant link to deletion requests on Commons so that files can be revisited in the future in just 1 visit (no need to visit the local image description page and click the link shown by {{Deleted on Commons}} just to visit those Commons deletion requests). Somehow, my apology if you felt that way. I'm still firm on the need to add links to Commons deletion requests so there's immediate convenience in facilitating the file transfers/file speedy deletion (F8) tags in the future. I'm a type of user who tries to organize some things.

Re: Judgefloro, no need. He already has a Flickr account (and possibly others like angel_of_death_photography), but I assume he may create another one since those Flickr accounts are already inactive for some time now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:So Close To What, Digital Deluxe Album Art.jpeg

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8, the inclusion of this artwork would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is my understanding that deluxe album covers are not including, per the policy referenced by the nominator. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is currently the only cover available for digital editions which makes it more visible and therefore needed. Pandaboy3 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but File:Tate McRae - So Close to What.png is the more widely sourced and recognized artwork, making it more vital to the understanding of the article. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that she's changed all the digital editions to this version, technically its the 'official' version of the album. Having both would be beneficial in differentiating between the two as the original is still noticeable but no longer the 'official'. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 04:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For Now Retracting because the digital album has been changed back to the original. No point having it as its now only the version for the alternate cover (Official name: So Close To What Exclusive 18 Track Digital Download with Alt Cover). However, IF the use of so many alternate covers becomes a notable event (I doubt it; but if it does) and its recognised with notable sources, then I say add it back at a later date. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 03:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this album art is not technically the deluxe cover art and has replaced the original as it’s standard album art on all digital platforms, including social media. Whilst the photo is not currently widely regarded it will be used as the primary photo in reference to the album. Especially because if somebody is coming from social media trying to understand what the album is, they will see this version of the art opposed to its “standard” I.e. requiring visual confirmation they are on the correct page. Nickname27 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is the digital version as of Feb 25, 2025. The original cover now only exists physically. This is not a deluxe cover, and the section title has been updated to reflect 2600:1700:67A8:A810:ABB4:A742:62BC:AC84 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the digital cover, it is going to be very recognized and vital to the understanding of the article. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Retracting because the digital album cover has been changed back to the original.Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The artwork was changed across all digital editions, including the standard edition. The original artwork is now only for (most) physical editions. It's more similar to the Miss Anthropocene situation, where two artworks are kept because both are standard, than to a traditional deluxe. Case in point: Miss Anthropocene has deluxe versions of both artworks that used to be included in that article but were removed per the deluxe policy. I firmly believe that both artworks need to be in the So Close to What article as well, since they are both standard now and the digital artwork is bound to gain prominence after the change. Removing it would decrease identifiability eventually. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 16:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting; see my reply to nominator. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 15:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forthwith. If you want to have the alternate/deluxe cover, go for it, but you can't have the original cover too. Pick one or find something that shows how notable this second cover is. Otherwise it fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement: Arguments above stating the artwork was changed across all digital platforms, it should be noted as of right now, the artwork was reverted to File:Tate McRae - So Close to What.png on Apple Music, Spotify and Tidal. So the argument that it is the standard-use/"official" artwork on digital/streaming platforms is now unfounded. The sole platform which houses the artwork is the official webstore, which notes its release is only available for limited time. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's unusual. I think we were all arguing in good faith based on the understandable assumption that the change was permanent and we couldn't have foreseen this. In light of this new development, I no longer have a strong opinion. I'm fine with whatever consensus ends up being reached after the revert. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the digital/streaming cover has now been reverted back to the original artwork. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a revised version of the album cover and it should be retained. I don't think there should be any discussion. Kst daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cover per WP:NFCC#3a. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Wakulla County Florida in 2013.jpg

Florida government works belong to PD, including flags and seals. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here...made the change Buffs (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nancy Manter Stay Still.jpeg

There is no mention of "Stay Still" or "flashe paint" in the article (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 09:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the artwork was an accidental omission. It has been rectified. It serves as an overall representation of her most important body of work. Mianvar1 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains the author's works, including flashe paint.

Please copy here the sentences from the article that would say that image serves as an overall representation of her most important body of work. — Ирука¹³ 13:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:190823040949-kurt-cobain-sweater-restricted.webp

Neither of these uses have a sufficient WP:NFCC.

The MTV Unplugged in New York use has deficient WP:NFCC#8 as it isn't used in the infobox for identification.

The use on Kurt Cobain is even worse as it's very easy to check that it fails WP:NFCC#1 as there are free options viewable at commons (with File:Nirvana around 1992 (cropped).jpg having been used for years at this point). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png

Invalid non-free file rationale, since a free (albeit worse) image exists, File:Hackleburg_tornado_tower_cam.png. E_F⁵ 13:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is very little footage of the tornado striking Hackleburg when it was at EF5 (best seen by this video of its progress), and the cam image is arguably worse in quality as admitted by the submitter, and additionally was weaker when that cam image was taken (around EF3/LE EF4, i.e not representative of its true intensity). The NFF rationale is thus, IMO, valid. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarioProtIV, with that logic you could technically have an NFF for every town it hit. creation of a free image is not possible is not valid, as a free image does exist. What makes this NFF "detrimental to the understanding of the topic"? The tornado looks nearly the same in both images. — E_F⁵ 15:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a free image that’s not terrible in quality I’m for adding it. But why replace a good image? The video shows this and despite their being a still image at around 3:45, that image is under All Rights Reserved on Flickr meaning it’s not compatible (was why it got deleted on Commons). Same rationale as the 2011 Joplin tornado image. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. Non-free files aren't added because they are of better quality than a free image. The difference with Joplin is that no known free image exists, which is not the case here. — E_F⁵ 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should try to find a better free image then. I did some more digging and this seems to be the only other good image I can find about the tornado, was cited in a study of the tornado and the author later gave an interview about the image. I’d have to assume this falls under free use if it was widely shared like this. I’m asking here because this is like the third attempt I’ve done with finding alternative images for Hackleburg but all three have either been unusable copyright (ARR) or (in this case and a separate non-free I uploaded last year) removed in favorite of a free one. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No image can be considered free unless the author explicitly stated that the image is free-to-use. I've also looked, and have found nothing else. — E_F⁵ 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As much as I wish the rationale of "the free image is of a horrible quality" was a thing, it clearly isn't. Departure– (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Free images exist and are just as good of quality (that is to say "poor") as the nonfree. Buffs (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpongeBob SquarePants character.svg

Replaceable with c:File:SpongeBob SquarePants character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator. A free equivalent of this image file is available here, which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Wikipedia version of the file should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:NFCCP#1. - tucoxn\^talk 13:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrick Star.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Patrick Star character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator. A free equivalent of this image file is available here, which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Wikipedia version of the file should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:NFCCP#1. - tucoxn\^talk 13:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Krabs.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Mr Krabs character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator. A free equivalent of this image file is available here, which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Wikipedia version of the file should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:NFCCP#1. - tucoxn\^talk 13:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandy Cheeks.svg

Replaceable with c:File:Sandy Cheeks character.png per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator. A free equivalent of this image file is available here, which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Wikipedia version of the file should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:NFCCP#1. - tucoxn\^talk 13:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree delete 94.98.20.36 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Billy Joel album covers

Both album covers were originally published in the US without an attached copyright notice (sources: Discogs [for Cold Spring Harbor], Your Vinyl Shop [for Piano Man]). They are thus in the public domain due to failing formalities and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your assessment might be correct, but the copyright notice could've been published on the inner or back covers. The fact that such notices aren't visible on the front cover itself doesn't necessary mean "no notice". Moreover, two websites hosting images of the covers without a visible notice could possibly be due to cropping or some other reason. Do you own copies of these albums? Can you check all the inner/back covers if you do?
This might be the back cover of Cold Springs Harbor, and it does look like there could be a copyright notice at the bottom of the cover where you'd kind of expect to find such things. The photo used on the front cover could also be attributed somewhere on the back cover too. I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave is a 2021 re-release per the copyright notice, not the original 1971 release.

I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. I think a statement like this could mean that album covers like c:File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg may actually be under copyright, but I could also be mistaken. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided shows the statement "Copyright 1971, 2021 Columbia records a division of Sony Music Entertainment. Originally release 1971. All rights reserved by Columbia Records ..." at the very bottom of the back cover. It's hard to see, but it's there. Whether this matters I can't say for sure. Perhaps it it would be a good idea to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's where these files are going to end up if these are PD for not having a notice. Anyway, the description for File:Are You Experienced - US cover.jpg which is the source for the enhanced quality file you linked above, does make mention of their being no copyright notice on the front or back; so, it might matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg

The editor has uploaded many photos from different years and probably taken in different places. As they writes on their user talk page, they owns the photo album. I think this is a misunderstanding c:COM:Own work. I think in each case it should be proven that the rights to the photos actually belong to uploader. — Ирука¹³ 09:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a second file to this discussion because it has essentially the same issues as the first file nominated, and also because it's related to this discussion started by the uploader on my user talk page. I originally tagged both these files both these files with {{npd}} because there's really no way to verify the uploader's claim that this is their own work since the uploader basically uploaded the each file with a CC license and no information about the image's provenance. I explained why this was done at User talk:Wikiaddict8962#File permission problem with File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg and the uploader responded by removing the speedy deletion tags. I've got no problem with any of that, but I don't think Wikipedia can keep these files as licensed without at least having the uploader's claim of copyright authorship verified by WP:VRT or perhaps find a way for them to be relicensed to something else even possible as non-free.
Given that Claude Nelson-Williams, the subject of the photos, died in 1989, there's simply no way the uploader could've taken these photos on the February 2025 dates given in each file's description. These certainly could've been scanned or re-photogrpahed on those dates, but the scanning of a photo or taking a photo of a photo doesn't create a new copyright explained in c:COM:2D copying; so, it's only the copyright statuses of the original photos that matter. Furthermore, physical possession of a photo doesn't automatically make one its copyright holder, unless the person possessing the photo is claiming to have taken it themselves or the copyright was somehow transferred to them by the original copyright holder; in either of those two cases, it should be too hard to provide more information about the photo's provenance. So, there might be a way to relicense these files so that they can be kept; that, however, is going to be hard to determine without knowing more information about their respective provenances. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The respective provenances of these photographs are from a private album. Unless I or other members of the subject matter's family give permission for these photographs to be published elsewhere, no one else should be in possession of them. Without giving away my location and provenance, in common law the copyright attaches to the photograph, except where it is specifically commissioned. These photographs were commissioned and formed part of a distinct private album extracts of which are now uploaded here and are in my possession. The subject matter in question is directly related to me so I speak with authority when I state that no one else, except other close family of the subject matter, are in possession of these photographs. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the terms of the copyright license you chose when you uploaded the photos to Wikipedia? If you didn't, then maybe you should do so now. You uploaded these photos under a license that allows these photos to be downloaded from Wikipedia by anyone in the world at anytime for any purpose, including commerical and derivative reuse; moreover, the license you used is irrevocable and basically remains in effect until the photos enter into the public domain for one reason or another. Others can use these photos even in ways that you might not like and there's not really anything you can do to stop them. You understand all of this, right? So, the fact that you possess copies of these photos or that they're from a private album no longer really matters because you've made them available to the whole world to do what they want with them as long as they comply with the terms of the license you chose. You also understand that Wikipedia is under no obligation to use or even host these photos just because you decided to upload them. So, unless you email your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT, these images will most likely ended being deleted. Moreover, the same would pretty much apply to most of the other files you uploaded to Wikipedia under the same type of license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed what I was stating. I provided the origin/provenance of these photographs which you were not au fait with. In terms of copyright and licensing, without divulging much of my background, I am very familiar with the legalities around copyright, licensing, etc. I drafted this Wikipedia page with the full knowledge that the photographs would be available publicly. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unable to divigue more about the provenance (such as who took the photo, when it was taken and where it was taken) of these photos on their file pages, or unable to verify your claim of copyright authorship/own work with Wikimedia VRT, then I think it's going to be hard for them to be kept. The same will probably be the case for many of the other files you uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons. VRT verification does allow you to avoid publicly divulging too much about who you are because VRT members sign an agreement not to publicly disclose the information of the emails VRT received or even discuss such details with anyone other than the sender and other VRT members; all anyone looking at the file's page will see is some general information about the file's provenance (when and where it was taken perhaps), a copyright license, and the template {{PermissionTicket}}. However, without an example of prior publication showing the photos have been released as you've licensed them or some sort of formal verification by VRT, it's basically going to be discussions like this or at c:COM:DR that will determine whether Wikipedia or Commons can keep a file. If a consensus is established to delete a file due to significant doubt about its licensing, then it'll be deleted unless there's a way to relicense it to make it policy compliant. Some of the files you've uploaded locally to Wikiepdia (like File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg) might've already entered into the public domain and only need to be relicensed to something like c:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired, but more recent images might be harder to sort out. In some cases, it might also be possible to treat a file as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and prevous publication is one the policy's ten non-free content use criteria. One of the two files being discussed here could possibly be converted to non-free and used in the main infobox if previous publication can be established given that the subject of the photo died in 1989, but it would be very hard to justify both of them per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information @Marchjuly.

I can provide separate sources to the images that appear in my private album.

A larger image of the second image (C-N-W with the bowtie) can be found on the website of my relation dedicated to his father. He can easily provide permission. I have the original newspaper articles in my album in which the two other photographs also appear - namely the now defunct Sierra Leone Daily Mail. None of these sources are online and the original photographs remain with the family. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

File:PRCConstitutionCoverLowRes.png

I don't believe this is a non-free file. Given that this is a document published by the government, this cover art of PRC Constitution should be relicensed under either (PD-China) or (PD-China-exempt) instead. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might also be PD-US because it's an edict of government. That could just apply to the text though. Jay Cubby 22:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ren & Stimpy Show - Happy Happy Joy Joy scene.webm

Does not satisfy point 8 WP:NFCC in all articles used. — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. For both, the file is accompanied with sufficient commentary. Jay Cubby 22:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if it's up to you, it could be kept in about 15 seconds (it just being the beginning chorus for "Happy Happy, Joy Joy", prominently featuring Ren and Stimpy's dance), or if it were to be kept overall, remain in its initial length. RTSthestardust (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armadillo heels by Alexander McQueen.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: speedy delete. Replaced it with the grody lookin' crop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives exist, granted, not of the same quality, but those free alternatives come from Flickr. This is not at all irreplaceable. Jay Cubby 22:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link some of your suggested alternatives? I was not able to find any when I was writing the article, although it's been several years and things do change. When I initially looked, many of the results appeared to be Flickr-washing, knockoffs, or the ornaments sold by the Met rather than the actual shoes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, are they not depicted in File:Platos Atlantis at Savage Beauty.jpg? Jay Cubby 01:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I guess even if it looks like ass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2025 (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.

February 28

File:Promo sober.jpg

Cover art of promo single (discogs). Neither "contextual significant" nor ethereally different from the other (international retail) cover art. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yeti (Doctor Who).jpg

c:File:Doctor Who Experience (30826731502).jpg covers this subject in extensive detail and is a free use media file, whereas this image is fair use. No need for the fair use file here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the costume does not pook similiar enough to how they appear in the episodes. And barely related to this FfD, but File:Reg Whitehead dressing as a Yeti for The Abominable Snowmen, 1967.jpg is a fair use image on the same page which can be removed instead. DWF91 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I'm very confused here, since that costume is how they appear in the episodes (Specifically their design from The Web of Fear, the same as the lead). As for the other image, I am marginal on it simply because it actually depicts the original Yeti costume, which to my knowledge is not actually depicted in free use media. I am unopposed to changing that of course, since I did find several better fair use shots in other sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the costume does not completely show what the yetis looked like- they were eerie and their eyes were glowing- and the image just looks very not eerie. Like for example, in Forest of the Dead, the angle and lighting for the Vashta Nerada image actually catches how they felt. DWF91 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean even so, the feel doesn't really matter much, especially per past discussions of copyrighted characters. If we have a free use alternative, we should use it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose 11210.jpg

A free version now exists, so NFCC is not anymore justified. Jay Cubby 16:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MetroCard.SVG

Fails WP:FREER#Multiple_restrictions: non-free SVG image without an official source. Wcam (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

File:AJL3 s jpeg.jpg

Possibly no educational purpose for Wikipedia/Commons (c:COM:SCOPE), the license was added by an IP who was probably the uploader but logged out, and the uploader seems to have a COI with the subj. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

File:Olderandwiser-lizzymcalpine-cover.jpg

Per WP:NFCCP 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scythian tatoo.jpg

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark PD. Mere reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the tattoo design may be too ancient for copyright but the design is on the preserved body of a person. The photo is not merely a shot of a 2-D tattoo but of the arm on which the tattoo was placed. The photo itself is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Whpq?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 07:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KornélSámuel.jpg

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KornélSámuel.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the sculpture is public domain, the copyright on the photo of the sculpture must still be considered. Unless there is information provide on the provenance of the photo that indicates the photo is also public domain, or otherwise freely licensed, then we need to assume this is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moeed-Pirzada.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: speedy delete per WP:F9 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Moeed Pirzada is salted, there's no reason to keep this image. MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. the given source notes explicitly on each image that it is copyrighted with no Creative Commons licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2025 (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:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

Previous deletion discussion

It seems facially unacceptable to host a non-free image so we can have the "official rendering" of a coat of arms. File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is exactly as correct a representation of said arms, and aesthetic preference or anachronistic sense of "official correctness" in a medium where it does not belong is not adequate justification for use of non-free media. The stated rationale, frankly, reads as reaching nonsense looking for an excuse not to use a free rendering of the arms. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many talks about this before...... the official version and the fake version are not even close. Moxy🍁 23:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even that doesn't matter. If a free rendering is wrong, then we should fix it. Use of non-free media is reserved for when no free alternative is possible, not when it doesn't presently exist. Remsense ‥ 论 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make it exactly the same or it would be a copyright violation..... thus why we have this here. We should never present to our readers and inaccurate version saying that it's official when there is a registered version. Moxy🍁 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the specification of the arms are inaccurately represented in the free version? They can be fixed so it doesn't matter, but I'm curious. This is a coat of arms, so any representation that follows its blazon is correct, per my original post. Your idea that an etically identical graphic is the only correct rendering is idiosyncratic and especially indefensible with copyright considerations. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an official copyrighted version that is an official symbol. Almost every aspect from shapes to colors etc have to diverge from the copyrighted version so it doesn't violate the copyright. We have discussed this many times with those familiar with copyright for two decades now. This is what we consider a time sink.... most of us aren't here full time and would like to devote our time to other things over trying to explain the same arguments again. Moxy🍁 23:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't like to relitigate things like this if I can help it, but given the copyright considerations it is irresponsible to let it go where I otherwise would like to. The basic reality of what the symbol actually is is being ignored. I don't want to waste your time, but I'd like to discuss the actual reasoning—that's not required to be with you if you're not up to it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones.... but this has come up so many times...so I'm wondering if the real question is are the user generated versions so close to the copyrighted versions that they should be up for deletion as it seems many can't distinguish them. Perhaps this proposal is all backwards. The copyright says "Any image so closely resembling this logo as to be likely to be confused with it would constitute a copyright and/or trademark infringement under Canadian law. As such, any free-use image would either be so significantly different as to be unsuitable to represent the Canada, or would be so nearly resembling this image as to be a copyright and/or trademark violation under Canadian law"Moxy🍁 00:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay focused on the issue rather than the case law, if that's okay with you:

For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones...

What is it? Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole bunch of user generated files of this nature..... So really what is the best way to protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement. Why would we not discuss this? File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Coat of arms of Canada (Canadian Royal Crown).svg, File:Canadian Arms Modified 2.png, File:Coat of arms of Canada (2022-).png Moxy🍁 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Today is March 3 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 3 – (new nomination)

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 "===March 3===" 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.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates