Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 May 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 30
June 1 >

May 31

File:Chrysler logo14.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: Keep * Pppery * in solidarity 21:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Chrysler logo14.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I nominate this logo as the original uploader. I consider that it fails NFCC policy #8 since the current logo is displayed on the infobox. No contextual significance that justifies its presence. This logo does not add any relevant info to readers' understanding of the article topic, . Fma12 (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. The image is placed in the Chrysler (brand) article adjacent to text that is about this logo specifically, so it does not violate NFCC #8. --Sable232 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Sable. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment a text that only reads "In 2011, the brand's winged emblem was modified, eliminating the historic blue ribbon center..." does not seem to comply with nfcc #8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). The adjacent text does not have historical relevance in this case, at least IMO. Fma12 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
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:FirstSpaceWalk.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: Remove from the listed articles in the nomination, except for Voskhod 2.. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

File:FirstSpaceWalk.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JW19335762743 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Requesting removal of this non-free image from the following articles:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm not willing to assume there's no creativity in the placement of the camera to take this image, so I'm not going to assume that it's public domain. With that out the way:
    Remove from Extravehicular activity and Human spaceflight as obviously decorative, hence failing NFCC#1 and 8.
    Remove from Alexei Leonov as we have other images illustrating him.
    Keep in Voskhod 2, as a picture of a historic event for which no free alternative can be created, and for which our current non-free photos ( a stamp and a picture of a museum exhibit) don't provide an adequate educational substitute. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)crossed out a word at 00:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    Per above, Remove from Extravehicular activity, Human spaceflight, and Alexei Leonov; Keep in Voskhod 2. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
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:Wilhelm Burmann.jpeg

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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Wilhelm Burmann.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GorillaWarfare (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As an image by a commericial photography studio being sold on Reuters, I believe this fails WP:NFCC#2 as, ultimately, we're using the image for the exact same thing that a photo agency/commercial photo website is selling the image for. (See WP:PRESSPHOTO ). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: The original credit line states "Rosalie O'Connor Photography/Handout via REUTERS". That means it's a handout photo by Rosalie O'Connor Photography and given to Reuters, who then subsequently published it. The photo isn't by Reuters staff and isn't available for licensing their website. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake on the currently being sold via Reuters thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33 Was going to do a slightly longer response, but then I got side tracked and realized - I don't think I can find a copyright notice/registration for the Apr 9th 1987 edition of The Beaumont Enterprise , which has a photo of Burmann, has a copyright notice, and I'm not seeing renewal within 5 years. The copy I'm working from is looks like it was scanned with a potato, but it's looking like we can deal with this now under the much easier WP:NFCC#1. Which, tbh, we know that anybody active in the public sphere in the US during the 1970s/1980s probably has a free photo availible of them, just not available easily to Wikipedians on the internet. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: you'll have to upload it to Commons first for the current img to be replaced. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
To be replaced, yes, but I'd like to find a better quality scan. Until then, at least this conversation has been simplified to "Given that we know there's a public domain image of this person published, is WP:NFCC#1 met?" GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Probably, although I prefer to have the file available first, even if it's a low quality scan. At least you can overwrite the file later when you do find a better scan.
Weak delete for now. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
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:Mazzy Star - L.A. Times (1990).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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mazzy Star - L.A. Times (1990).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael0986 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image fails WP:NFCC#1; not that we have other photographs in Commons:Category:Mazzy Star showing both these members of the band. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Michael0986: the fair use justification states "A free contemporary image would not convey the same information." Why do you believe this to be the case? ―Howard • 🌽33 20:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
David Roback passing away in 2020 is the primary reason for a "contemporary image" not conveying the same information. The image I uploaded isn't that great quality-wise, a bit too grainy really. But at least it shows Mazzy Star as the public recognizes them I guess. Michael0986 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but their faces are not clear in any of those photos. When people think of Mazzy Star it's of Hope and David. Michael0986 (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but their faces are not clear in any of those photos. When people think of Mazzy Star it's of Hope and David. Michael0986 (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Fails nfcc #1 - Fma12 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
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:Schultz dutch mug.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: Moved to Commons. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Schultz dutch mug.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hutcher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Mugshot was published at least by 1934, as seen on this wanted poster: c:File:Dutch_Schultz_Wanted_Poster.jpg. Therefore it would've needed copyright renewal (assuming it was even published with valid copyright notice). As far as I can tell the NYPD does not appear to have renewed their copyright for any mugshots. Thus it should be moved to Commons with c:Template:PD-US-not renewed. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to commons per nom, was published without notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI