Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 24

July 24

File:Long Beach Jane Doe.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relist czar 05:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:Long_Beach_Jane_Doe.jpg

File:Long Beach Jane Doe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gourami Watcher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this a fairuse replaceable image? We have File:700UFCA Recon 08-12-2014.jpg which is another reconstruction but that's just a creation by an editor from what I can tell. Note that List of unidentified murder victims in California uses the commons image and not this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The image is used because it was created by professionals - NCMEC has state-of-the-art technology as well. The watermarking part of the argument does not apply because it is only recommended for free images, which this image is not.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the other image then? It isn't like that specific image is famous or something (like if it was the first reconstruction or some wrong reconstruction) so if someone can create a free version, isn't our usage of the non-free one problematic? I'm wondering about that other reconstruction entirely; we don't know anything about it other than one editor @CarlK90245: claims that it is another reconstruction and that editor is not a reliable source on whether or not they know how to reconstruct images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 23:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm confused on what the argument is. Are you now saying we should keep the fair use and delete the other file? Or delete both???--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relist czar 05:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:National_Bank_of_New_Zealand_logo.svg

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by XLerate (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file currently being used in Lloyds Bank#Expnasion, National Bank of New Zealand, Lloyds Associated Banking Company, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Bank Canada. Files has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but there are WP:NFCCP problems with each of these usages.

• File is being used to illustrate a former logo in "Lloyds Bank". Although there is some discussion of the merger that led to this logo being replaced, the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Suggest remove from article unless the NFCC#8 issues are fixed.
• File's usage in "Lloyds Associated Banking Company", "Lloyds Bank California" and "Lloyds Bank Canada" is problematic because of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Each of these is listed as a subsidiary of Lloyds Bank and the parent entities are generally not allowed to be used in stand-alone articles about their child entities. Moreover, the source url provided for the file, www.nationalbank.co.nz/rural/information/ruralreport/pdf/200812.pdf, is not longer working and the earliest archived version of it that I could find of it (here) does not indicate any connection to any of these three subsidiaries at all. I've tried searching for something to indicate such a connection, but have had no luck. This might be simply because all three subsidiaries have been defunct for almost 30 years. The connection between the logo and the subsidiaries is sketchy at best and very hard to verify so I suggest remove from each of the articles.
• File's usage in "National Bank of New Zealand" is a bit unclear per NFCC#8 and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. According to the article, the bank was sold by Lloyd's to ANZ Bank in 2003, which would make it a subsidiary of ANZ Bank after 2003. The article says that an agreement was reached which allowed the bank to continue to use the Lloyds logo for a period of 7 years after the sale, but this statement not supported by a reliable source. However, based upon the archived url mentioned, it appears that the bank was using the logo as late as 2008, so it seems the logo is being used as stated in its non-free use rationale. The bank is listed as going defunct in 2012, which means, if the article is accurate, that it's possible that it was possibly using another logo after it's agreement with Lloyds ran out after 7 years and before it went defunct. the most recent archived version I could find of the bank using the Lloyds logo is from October 2012. This November 2012 archived version states that the bank "has joined with ANZ". So, I'm not sure how to reconcile what these websites with the "With the purchase, ANZ also bought the right to continue to use the Black Horse logo for seven years." in the article since the logo seems to have been used for more than 7 years after ANZ bought the bank. This is the only possible article where the file's usage seems to be NFCC compliant, but I am interested in hearing what others might think.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added a source for the National Bank of New Zealand. See also, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Bank Canada. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@2.27.75.26: The file is being used in five articles. Are you suggesting "keep" for all five articles, or only certain articles. I still feel that the non-free usage of the logo does not come close to satisfying in NFCC#8 in "Lloyds Bank" and the file should be removed from that article. As for the subsidiaries, while it's true that you've helped clarify the connection between Lloyds Bank PLC and the other four, they are still described as wholly owned subsidiaries of the former in their respective articles. The book Major Companies of Europe 1993/94: Volume 2 Major Companies of the United Kingdom clearly shows this to be the case for two of the four: The National Bank of New Zealand and Lloyds Associated Banking Company (as Lloyds Merchant Bank). So, I still think the logo should probably not be used per No. 17 of NFC#UUI, but others may feel differently on this point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17, which states: "The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." These subsidiaries did not lack their own branding (as evidenced by the links provided above and at NBNZ), in the way that the Audit Panel, for example, lacks branding distinct from that of the London Assembly. See Report and Accounts (p. 5), Lloyds Bank Limited, 1977: "The Black Horse sign is now being progressively introduced throughout the Group as the symbol of our presence in countries across the world" and Report and Accounts (p. 13), Lloyds Bank Limited, 1978: "Our adoption of the Black Horse symbol in New Zealand has also assisted in identifying the National Bank with the Lloyds Bank Group" (both available from Companies House). As for use in the Lloyds Bank article, the logo is the subject of sourced commentary in the preceding section. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The source discussing the "black horse" in the previous section does not discuss this particular logo at all. I don't think there's a need for another black horse logo in addition to the one already shown in the main infobox per WP:NFCC#3a. How would removing this non-free file be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the sentence "When the bank took over that bank in 1884, it retained the black horse as its symbol" per WP:NFCC#8?

As for the subsidiaries, I do think the case has probably been made for "National Bank of New Zealand", but I'm still not quite sure about the others. I have no problem, however, going along with whatever the consensus turns out to be.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of "however" -- 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)]

As I said, I think this is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17 for the reasons given above. I'm not clear how the case may have been made for NBNZ but not for the other subsidiaries. Why shouldn't they be treated in the same way? Should we remove the Banco Santander logo from Santander UK and other articles? What about the RBS Group logo at RBS and so on? I see that the HSBC logo is public domain under US law, but it is non-free in its home country. Should we remove that from the numerous articles in which it appears? With respect to Lloyds Bank, I have added some commentary which I hope will satisfy the requirements. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying to argue that other stuff exists is usually not a good way to try and justify non-free usage. There are lots of non-free files being used in lots of different articles and quite a large number of them are being used incorrectly. Moreover, a logo considered to be public domain in the US can be tagged with Template:PD-USonly and used as such on English Wikipedia. Not being in the public domain in its country of origin probably means that the logo cannot be uploaded to Commons, but that does not automatically mean it is subject to the NFCC on English Wikipedia. If you feel the usage of any of the other logos you mentioned does not comply with the NFCC, you can tag the file with Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale or nominate it for discussion at FFD. That's what we are doing here: discussing whether the usage of this image complies with the NFCC. The discussion is still open, so others may comment either way and whomever closes the discussion will read all which has been written and make their close according to WP:FFDAI. As for the statement "Lloyds' iconic black horse device was retained and modified to reflect the TSB merger." you added to the the "Lloyds Bank" article, I don't see why three non-free images showing a black horse are needed to understand the meaning of that. That is just my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We are indeed discussing whether usage of the image complies with NFCC, but you have asserted that it does not and I am disputing that assertion. These were separate companies. Are you really suggesting that they should not have their logo in the infobox because it was shared with the parent? If so, I think that is a misinterpretation of NFC#UUI No. 17 and I still do not understand how the case may have been made for one but not for the other subsidiaries. In terms of the Lloyds Bank article, I do feel it helps the reader to see how the logo was modified to reflect the TSB merger (the Lloyds TSB version has not been listed here). 2.27.75.26 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Firefly - Whitefall.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Firefly - Whitefall.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthew (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no critical commentary associated with this image's usage in List of Firefly planets and moons, it is used solely for decoration. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking critical commentary required by WP:NFCI. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Waterbury Dam.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Waterbury Dam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SNSAnchor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possible derivative of non-free content (text) FASTILY 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MattSlaterPatsKR.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MattSlaterPatsKR.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SNSAnchor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, blurry/low-res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:IvFearsPatsCoach.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:IvFearsPatsCoach.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SNSAnchor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, blurry/low-res, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Valentine radiguet jean.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Valentine radiguet jean.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leopoldhw (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The license on this image is not correct, and I am not convinced it is free. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Equestria Girls Legend of Everfree.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Equestria Girls Legend of Everfree.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EquestriaGirlsFan2003 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is orphaned and most likely non-free. The file description cites this website as the source of the image, and while that website does release its own content under CC-BY 4.0, the source makes it clear that this image is not its original content. The company Hasbro is the copyright holder, and only they may release this work under CC-BY, but there is no evidence that they have. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would also note that I don't think converting to fair use is the solution, as this was a pre-production image from months ago. An alternative, official logo is most likely available and better suited for the article than this image. Mz7 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bridging phosphinimide main group complex.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bridging phosphinimide main group complex.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amandamariec (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, seems distorted, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 22:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.