Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 12

May 12

File:Moon waffles.png

This image only illustrates a gag from the episode. The gag is just one of many fun things Homer did on his day off, and is completely removable to an outsider's understanding of the episode. There is already an image from the episode illustrating Homer with God, a more salient point of the plot. As the caption says on that image, there is discussion in the article about God's appearance on the episode and what it meant (if anything) that he had one more finger. In comparison, this image is just to illustrate a joke in the plot section, and is probably more suited to the standards of Wikia (Fandom) rather than Wikipedia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Brobecks 2005.jpg

Existing group, so fails WP:NFCC1. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Operazione Gladio.jpeg

Bogus license, no source. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is screenshot from wikipedia Wikitalovin1 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the uploader was trying to bring over a copy of it:File:Operazione Gladio.png, which probably would've been suitable for non-free use in the Operation Gladio article. hinnk (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LucianaAbreu.jpg

Small, low-res, seems to be a crop of another file. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethiopian Regiment Liberty To Slaves Smock.jpg

Uploader was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. Their remaining claimed own works are dubious. File:U.S. Navy Uniform Civil War.jpg even cites Pinterest as the source. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 04:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GMA Pinoy TV logo.png

Violation of WP:NFCC. Replacable with c:File:Gmapinoytv.png. 124.104.16.92^{Talk to me} 13:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Commons licensing tag is probably wrong. COM:TOO Philippines says that copyright may be established in the Philippines "even if [the work] lacks a significant level of creativity" and "some logos that may be simple for the American jurisprudence may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines." This image is more complex than the Photo Sikwate example given there. hinnk (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gmapinoytv.png.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cadillac Formula 1 Team Logo (2025).svg

Remove from 2026 Formula One World Championship per WP:NFCC#8. There is nothing contextually significant about the use in this article. It is merely part of a decorative {{multiple image}}. The logo isn't even mentioned, let alone the subject of subject of sourced commentary in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – The nominator appears to have overlooked the fact that the logo is also used on Cadillac in Formula One, and has a valid rationale for its use there. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the logo of a formula one team on a formula one season page is not contextually significant, what is?. You say the logo isn't even mentioned, imo it doesnt have to be mentioned. "Cadillac will become the eleventh team in Formula One, marking Cadillac's first appearance in the series and the first new team on the grid since Haas in 2016." should provide enough context for the logo to be on the page. Furhter underneath the images, context is provided by saying "Audi and Cadillac will enter Formula One for the first time," -

Louis (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Ben Carson alternate cover.jpg

This additional non-free artwork is NOT shown at the top of the infobox, and it is not "the primary visual image associated with the work". No independent commentary talks about this artwork in depth, so it cannot be considered important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Ben Carson + Instrumentals cover.png

This additional non-free artwork is NOT shown at the top of the infobox, and it is not "the primary visual image associated with the work". No independent commentary talks about this artwork in depth, so it cannot be considered important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see how this is reasonable; this is both the cover on streaming and also the deluxe/album reissue cover. The implication that this image shouldn't exist would also implicate that Template:Extra album cover is unnecessary and all 8,400 pages that use it should have their corresponding images deleted because they're not "the primary visual image associated with the work". Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 01:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]