Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Search all archived Files for discussion nominations:

WP:FFDWP:FFD

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	3	10	31	43	87
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	15	16	10	41
RfD	0	0	0	65	65
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Nominated files are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus or the file may be deleted or removed if the nominator specifically requests it and no objections are raised.

If you want to nominate a file for discussion, follow the instructions below.

How to use this page

Reasons for nominating a file

Shortcut

WP:FFD#REASONSWP:FFD#REASONS

While this list comprises the most common and uncontroversial reasons to discuss a file, any properly explained reason can be used. Examples of files you may request for discussion here include:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.

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 or its copyright status, start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to nominate here

Shortcut

WP:FFD#NOTWP:FFD#NOT

The majority of deletion and merge proposals concerning pages in the file namespace should be nominated at this venue. However, there are a few exceptions:

In general, if a deletion is uncontroversial, use the Proposed deletion process; if your proposed deletion is later contested, then you can nominate the file here.
For speedy deletion candidates, tag the file under one of the criteria for speedy deletion of files. These include duplicates, thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, and others
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
For files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused, or are non-free without rationale, place one of the following tags on 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.
For redundant or duplicate files, use:
1. {{Db-f1|FILENAME}} (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
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is nominated 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}}.
For files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, use the Commons deletion request system.
For file description pages with no local file, even if they are in the file namespace:
1. For redirects, if none of the criteria for speedy deletion of redirects apply, nominate it at Redirects for discussion.
2. For local description pages with no associated file, speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
3. For local description pages for files hosted on Commons, speedily delete them under criterion F2 using {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. For other local description pages for files hosted on Commons, nominate them at Miscellany for deletion.
For appropriately-licensed files which could be usable elsewhere, copy them to Wikimedia Commons instead. Once copied to the Commons, you can speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
For requesting the undeletion of a file, contact the administrator who deleted the file; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, use Deletion review.

Nominate a file

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an file on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate files!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate files, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.

Shortcut

WP:FFDHOWWP:FFDHOW

Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a file for discussion. Do not include the "File:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related files at once, nominate the first file using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional files into the existing nomination.

You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the file should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. Only registered users can nominate files. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate files. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.

Methods

Twinkle

How to nominate a file at TfD

After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the file you want to nominate

Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!

The easiest way to nominate files for discussion is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:

Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
Go back to the file, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
Write a short nomination statement
If you want to nominate more than one file, enter the additional files into this tool

If Twinkle does not seem to work or you cannot edit the file, you are probably following the wrong process. Try this simpler process instead:

Copy the name of the file, for example, File:Weather balloon.png.
Paste it into the Wikipedia search bar, but replace File: with C:File: like this: C:File:Weather balloon.png.
Click ↵ Enter to perform the search. If the same file appears, it worked! Now you just need to click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Tools sidebar on the right of the page and explain why you think the file should be deleted.

Manual method

If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate files at FfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.

Manual instructions

Most of these steps are performed automatically when using the § Twinkle method. To do it manually instead, follow these steps:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 October 25}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Edit today's TfD log and nominate 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 nominating 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 a nomination of multiple files. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 October 25}}` 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=2026 October 25}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

Discussion

In explaining their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

WP:NFCC1 – Free equivalent is or is not available
WP:NFCC1 – Significance
WP:NFC#UUI – 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. 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.

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 1933, not 1927.
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}}.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

October 14

Images that are too small

[edit]

These images are all too small to be hosted on the wiki, and larger replacement images for them were never found. I PRODed all of these earlier this month, but they were contested, so I'm taking them here instead. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair use images are supposed to be small. Large images would be a direct violation of the criteria. I'm not sure about how important they are to the articles, but the rationale here seems invalid. Wizardman 23:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't that make Template:Too small (which is on all of these file pages, by the way) redundant and useless, though? JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Spot-checking, these all seem "small", but not "too small for their current use-case". Is your position that they actually are too small for their current use-case, or that they are too small for some other use you have in mind, or just that they seem pretty small generally? DMacks (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I based my position on their usage of the abovementioned template, which I added to the NFL Draft logo file pages several months ago because they were generally small. (The template was already on the other pages.) I believe that if the pertinent details are compromised, and if a larger version of the logo/screenshot in which they're not compromised cannot be found, then the existing files are not worth keeping. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
In that case, all I have to say is keep: large enough as a logo for the infobox and per Wizardman substantially larger would push into an NFCC policy violation. DMacks (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: if all these files are kept, I'm taking that template to TfD on that basis, unless someone can provide a solid reason as to why I shouldn't. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The instructions related to the template state "DO NOT TAG NON-FREE IMAGES!: They are displayed in this category as thumbnails, which is disallowed per fair use guidelines. As a matter of fact, non-free images are to be of small resolution." (see Category:Images that are too small). If non-free images are tagged, that's a separate problem (either the tagger didn't read the instructions or the tagger is taking issue with some aspect of non-free image use). Make sure your argument focuses solely on free images and why we shouldn't track and try to upgrade them. DMacks (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
why we shouldn't track and try to upgrade them My argument is that we SHOULD, because that's exactly what the template says to do. I understand why non-free images shouldn't be tagged with that template, but I'm not sure why we shouldn't upgrade free images when the template literally says otherwise. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Quite simply, these images should not have this tag on them. Again, my hypothesis is that whoever added the tags didn't read the instructions; might be useful to give them a reminder. DMacks (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I would say keep, as WP:IMAGERES sounds very subjective regarding non-free images: There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce. Some legal proceedings have discussed the issue, but are inconclusive here. Free images on the other hand are a different matter, and they are both addressed on WP:FILESIZE: images should be uploaded at high resolution ... Exception: If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible consistent with its fair-use rationale, to prevent use of Wikipedia's copy as a substitute for the original work. I would also quote WP:FILESIZE and WP:IMAGERES if the OP ever decides to propose Template:Too small on TFD too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The TMC VOD logo adds nothing to that article and can probably be deleted. The article also dearly needs sludge removal. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I wonder if that one is a below-TOO textlogo. The other TMC logos that look similar are on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep all except for File:Trash Can Icon.png that is thoroughly useless. I believe that there might a misunderstanding of the WP:NFCC at play here. too small to be hosted on the wiki directly relates to WP:NFCC2 and is not a deletion rationale; larger replacement images for them were never found is actually a reason to keep per WP:NFCC1. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Balanced chemical reactions for mix of In and allyl halide.svg

[edit]

First equation is not definitely true by product ratio (Organoindium chemistry says a variety of interconverting are formed); second equation is not balanced (missing 3 H2O, but not clear at which point it is added). First is replaced by commons:File:Allyl-indium formation.svg; the overall organic aspect of these two is replaced by File:IMA in two steps as scalable vg file.svg. DMacks (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete (and move to Commons File:IMA in two steps as scalable vg file.svg since we're here) this hurts to look at, and while the replacements are not amazing either, they are good enough to justify getting rid of this. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Simply Jet Logo.png

[edit]

No need for this to be uploaded under non-free use rationale: it does not meet the threshold of originality and can be uploaded to Commons as it is (imo) in the public domain. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep and just move to commons, probably under TOO imo... squawk7700 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I just checked and found that they have a new logo anyways which I've already uploaded to commons (File:Simply Jet logo 2026.svg). Per WP:LOGOS the most current logo should usually be used anyways so replace the current logo with the new one and delete this per F5— Preceding unsigned comment added by Squawk7700 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons Below TOO, whether in use or not. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

October 13

File:Paul McCartney - McCartney.jpg

[edit]

Multiple copies of the first US pressing of the album appear to have no copyright notice on it ( and more). The article states the album was published in the US 3 days after the UK. Unless someone can show original album copies were published with a copyright notice it should be moved to Commons with c:Template:PD-US-no notice and c:Template:Simultaneous US publication. There is no evidence on the file page that the album cover is under a copyright 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wcamp9 @Sundayclose @Based5290 @Howardcorn33 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep I am really not confident enough to move an album cover to Commons based on this, and I would need to see more than Ebay listings to be sure honestly. There is no harm in keeping this where it is for now. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:51, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons To me, knowing that Apple Records did not comply with U.S. formalities on many of the Beatles album does ease my concerns enough to say with reasonable confidence that this is indeed public domain. The photos at the Ebay listings seem comprehensive enough. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

October 12

File:Irish slaves myth Breaker Boys meme.jpg

[edit]

I suggest move to Commons since the photo is PD and the text is non-literary thus probably below TOO. Rose Abrams (T C L) 08:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Also just noticed... if we decide to not move, it needs a much better rationale. As it looks now, it comes very close to CSD F6 or F7. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons I don't think there is anything copyrightable here. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Little America Penguin Billboard.JPG

[edit]

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D artwork. As c:COM:SIGNS states, complex signs are copyrighted in the United States. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Explicit Is that not a reason to downsize the file and update its use rationale, instead of deleting? I removed it from Grand America Hotels & Resorts, meaning it is only left on Little America, Wyoming and passes WP:NFCC3B. On this page I could see a fair use rationale to be justified. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

October 8

File:AMD Zen 2 logo.png

[edit]

No copyrightable elements - this logo only consists of an ensō and the text "Zen 2". Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons alongside File:Zen-3-logo-transparent-2020-inverted.svg and File:AMD Zen 4 logo.png, that are the same logo with the number updated, and therefore similarly below TOO. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

October 5

File:Think of the children.webm

[edit]

Uncertain if this meets NFCC#8. While this specific scene is discussed in the article, it's not really in relation to the scene itself but rather its subsequent spread and influence. There's nothing particular in the clip that isn't already explained in words, except possibly visual and auditory identification of the character which usually doesn't warrant a non-free file. I don't think that the clip can be said to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep the Simpson's mocking of it is central to how this cliché has become so infamous as a rhetorical tactic, and this clip in particular is a meme in itself, coming from the end of Season 7, arguably a time where the cultural influence of the show was at its most overwhelming. I believe it definitely meets WP:NFCC#8 for this reason. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't really see your argument? As I said, the point is that the clip itself (as in, its visuals and audio) is not discussed, only its existence and impact. What exactly does the clip provide to the article that the text does not? Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

October 1

File:Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" sketch.jpeg

[edit]

Invalid claim for NFCCs #1 and #8. It's not software, and "terrifying and absurd" is not a valid reason for non-free images. Furthermore, the image does not add anything but cosmetics to the article, so a valid rationale probably cannot be written. Rose Abrams (T C L) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep The specific justification is "for identification and critical commentary". It depicts the comedy sketch, in which the visual element of Mitchell and Webb wearing SS uniforms in a WWII bunker is a crucial element. This is directly discussed in the article. Mitchell and Webb are well-beloved figures in British comedy, and the incongruity of seeing them dressed as Nazis is a big part of the buildup to the punchline. — The Anome (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I strongly believe all those details of the sketch can be easily conveyed with text only, which the article already does. And even still, the discussion in the article simply describes the scene rather than offer critical commentary, so the image being present does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" as required by NFCC#8. "Well-beloved figures" and "buildup to the punchline" are not valid reasons under NFCC – please see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSFUNNY. There are no reason under NFCC that the subject of an article "needs" an image purely from the article existing. Rose Abrams (T C L) 09:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Anome It looks like you removed my reply. That is not acceptable, please see WP:TPO or my message on your talkpage for why. I will assume good faith and hope you did so by mistake, ~~and if so I expect you to add it back~~. If not, be aware that bad faith editing will not result in the image being kept. Rose Abrams (T C L) 09:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC) Since you appear to have been offline for several hours, I have now restored my comment myself. (The reason that I initially asked you to do so was simply my way to assume good faith and that a user may want to clean up their own mistakes, but because of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY I didn't want to leave the issue hanging for long.) Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I removed your reply - I can assure you that that was by mistake through concurrent editing. I will look at the revision you sent and restore it unless you have done so already. - update: it looks by the timestamp that you have already done so. — The Anome (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rose Abrams: Regarding your restored comment: I have expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours; twice, once as proposer and a second time as a comment. I think we have to agree to disagree, and let others sort it out. — The Anome (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait for continued discussion and eventual closure. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. It is way too crucial. SportsLover1967 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete There is not really in-article discussion of the costume design itself. The primary notable thing about this episode is the really quotable line "Are we the baddies", which does not need a fair use image. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

File:La fata turchina.jpg

[edit]

This is PD in US since 2019, no? SportsLover1967 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This is PD. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone relist this if possible? SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

September 30

File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg

[edit]

The uploader is not sure how our WP:NFCC works despite I provided them with a detailed explaination about it, mainly points 1 and 8. And I'm not going to wait indefinitely until it happens. The image depicts Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep arguing inside the restaurant J.G. Melon. It is claimed the image is famous and pivotal. The caption there read: "Hoffman and Streep at J.G. Melon in Kramer vs. Kramer. The article says "A tense crucial scene with Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman, in which Dustin Hoffman smacks his wine glass against the wall, was filmed at the restaurant for the 1979 Academy Award for Best Picture legal divorce drama film Kramer vs. Kramer", something not depicted by this specific still.

I am nominating this file for review as the ~~nominator~~ uploader is upset(?) I decided to remove it from J.G. Melon despite it doesn't satisfy NFCC8 in the restaurant's page, and the uploader cannot justify its use there. Whether it has to be deleted, replaced with a file depicting what the articles say, and/or whether it is valid in the restaurant's page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the uploader, and I think you've projected some angst on my part, even though all of my replies have been quite neutral and civil. As you removed the image with the edit summary, "Non-free content is not decorative," I merely asked for clarification of what you meant because that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in WP:NFCC. You did provide a detailed explanation, but it's not as clear as you think it is (the When Harry Met Sally example you cited is actually very similar to the image I uploaded: it doesn't show Sally banging on the table nor focusing on the patron saying "I'll have what she's having," it's a visual of the scene). The image I uploaded allows for better visual understanding of a scene with cultural significance in an important film. You may disagree, but the tone of your replies has, for no apparent reason, been awfully contemptuous towards me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"the tone of your replies has, for no apparent reason, been awfully contemptuous towards me" is just your opinion. At this discussion, we are discussing File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg, as a reminder. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. So setting aside the characterization you made of my emotional state above, could you elaborate on why you believe the contextual connection is insufficient for WP:NFCC8? In particular, what distinction are you drawing between an image that decorates an article and one that provides visual context? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I already did it in the introduction. Since you are the person asking File:JG Melon Kramer.jpg to be added to J.G. Melon's section "In popular culture", a section that mentions the scene but doesn't illustrate it verbatim, either through its caption or article text, you are the person required to justify NFC8, not me, because you uploaded the file claiming it met Wikipedia's fair use policy to be used in the article Kramer vs. Kramer with educative purposes, which is acceptable fair use, and to be used in the article of a restaurant with an unclear educational use with a caption that can be paraphrased as "this film scene happened inside this restaurant".

You need to provide evidence that placing a copyrighted image of a film still is pivotally needed to be placed in a restaurant's page because,

"Its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"
"Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"

Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If your position is that a film still cannot satisfy WP:NFCC8 in an article about a filming location, I don't think that follows from WP:NFCC8 itself. If instead you're saying this particular still doesn't provide enough additional understanding of the film/restaurant, I think that's the substantive question we could resolve.

The proposed use is to visually illustrate J.G. Melon's role as a filming location, using the same general rationale as the Katz' example you raised. That's the justification, and my view is that it satisfies both of the WP:NFCC#8 criteria you quoted. I understand your position, so I'd be curious for other editors to weigh in.

I agree that the caption and surrounding text should make the connection explicit and have never been opposed to revising the caption(s)/article text so the image is directly discussed rather than simply placed alongside a statement that a scene was filmed there. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Office XP.svg

[edit]

Is this logo really copyrightable? I think it's below TOO. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

File:PCD Don't Cha.png

[edit]

Perhaps similar to PRODded image (File:The Pussycat Dolls - Don't Cha.png). This alternative cover art still is unneeded and non-compliant with NFCC. The other American cover art already suffices, yet the uploader may not have thought so. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't find the American cover art sufficient, as it was used only on a limited amount of pressings. In my opinion, if any cover should be deleted, it should be that one. The international one replaces both American covers on digital releases as well, and is now used as the default cover worldwide. Bronx Langford (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Pussycat Dolls is an American girl group. We can't use the international artwork just because it's been used in also later pressings, huh? Deleting the other American cover art feels unjust and wouldn't represent the American-ness of the group's single release, right? George Ho (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

but the once-international cover is now American on digital releases too (though the "American-ness" of it all is an odd hill to die on, if you don't mind me saying so) Bronx Langford (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Deleting the other US cover art wouldn't be right for me, especially considering discogs listing. Oh, and another US cover was used for a two-track CD release. Furthermore, CDs were still wide when the recording was first released in 2005. Let's then await others' opinions on this cover art. George Ho (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 25

File:Album cover artwork for Taylor Swift - The Life of a Showgirl - The Encore.png

[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

Image fails to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#3a and #8. The original artwork upload (File:Taylor Swift – The Life of a Showgirl (album cover).png more than adequately conveys the "equivalent significant information" and the exclusion of the nominated file would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article in question (The Life of a Showgirl). livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, an image with all the 1989 versions is better. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
not a valid reason to nominate it for deletion Qwertyuiop2763 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
I didn't nominate it for deletion, but this album has several album covers (each representing minor additions to the track listings), and none is as relevant as the standard edition. I agree that "Minimal number of items" applies here. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up the "argument" for deleting the album cover. The Encore is the only variant of this album that both has a drastically different cover from the original (it's an entirely different image, so yes that is drastically different), and includes brand new material (four additional songs as a separate disc). It also has its own single with music video, and an entire critical reception section dedicated to it. You need to argue why including the artwork is unnecessary despite all of this, not just by ignoring whatever information doesn't work in your favor (or saying it doesn't take away from the readers' understanding of the album/they can find the artwork elsewhere, because by that logic why even show the original cover?). Comparing this to the other minor variants of the album (or Midnights variants) just reveals your ignorance/lack of knowledge on this subject, and shows that you shouldn't even be "participating" in this discussion at all. InsiderChiari (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
You said it all! ~2026-53639-81 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

this is not a good Faith argument ~2026-53639-81 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep This release is more than just a variant of the standard album, but an extended release in its own right, like The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology. Elephantranges (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
@Elephantranges: I'd be inclined to see your point better if A Matter of Time's article actually included the Final Hour cover as well, but it doesn't. Skyversay (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Could've sworn it was there, guess not! Elephantranges (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Uploader here, not voting since it is my own upload. I personally don't get Wikipedia's stigma against non-free images when it is an image that can be used to represent an important variation (deluxe) of an album. And has appeared before on projects such as on the Playboi Carti mixtape.
I took a better look at the NFCC and saw that it is based on a document from March 23, 2007, like three months away from me being born and the first iPhone releasing, no wonder why Wikipedia feels so behind while Genius and publications get to have such high quality works. Gemdation (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Nothing prevents you to make modifications to NFCC or contribute to Genius, am I wrong? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
To the NFCC, I'm sure it would. If someone were to replace those outdated "only use it as a last resort" meanings, it would most likely get reverted. Gemdation (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mean it literal, you know. Policies change all the time because someone wants them changed and convinces the community about it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gemdation: Just because a policy is "old" by your standards, does not mean it needs to be changed. In the grand scheme of things, 19 years is not a lot of time, not even to human perception. They are still copyrighted and non-free works, not ours to use, and we should use them very minimally. Skyversay (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this is a deluxe cover. Against the terms of Wikipedia. It also serves virtually no visual distinction for viewers and the alternative album cover is naturally incurred to be a deluxe cover. Nickname27 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Elephantranges. The cover of a major alternate version is perfectly suitable for inclusion. (FWIW, I'm also inclined to agree with Gemdation about the NFCC, but that's a discussion for another time and venue.) Obsidian the Fox 03:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep!!! ~2026-51811-97 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this cover definitely meets WP:NFCC3A as it's vastly different from the original. Plus, the reissue received a lot of coverage and it adds a substantial amount of content to the album, therefore WP:NFCC8 is satisfied. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
@ALittleButterfly15: "Vastly different" and it's just a shot of Swift standing up with a flapper dress on against a pink and black background that mirrors the cut-up style of the original. Big deal. That can be summarized in prose. Skyversay (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@Skyversay "Easy to summarize" is different from "convey equivalent significant information", which the original image can't. If people also just want to bring the alt parameter to prose like that then the entirety of Wikipedia would not consist of any image at all, free or not. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@ALittleButterfly15: The style of font and the cut-up background are the same aesthetic on both covers, just different colours and text. The main difference is the shot of Swift. People will know what Swift looks like if they don't already from the main cover. That is significantly equivalent information. You will find from previous decisions that there is precedent in deletion discussions for not keeping alternate versions of covers simply because a different photograph of the artist is used, considering her presence, and in pop music at large, a shot of the artist is the focus. Skyversay (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep because this is the only extended version of the album with brand new material, so including this cover and not the other variants makes sense, as with The Tortured Poets Department. InsiderChiari (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Not the first time Swift has released a whole new cover for an edition of an album. In the case of the Tortured Poets Department, it was a double album with the number of new tracks of The Anthology matching the standard in volume. That's not the case here. The Anthology had a physical re-release; The Encore does not. Midnights also had a Til Dawn reissue which was also widely covered but its cover artwork was not included in the article. ℛonherry☘ 14:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
What are the other times Swift has released a whole new cover for an edition of an album? (An actual edition with new songs, not variants) Midnights' Til Dawn reissue used the same cover but with different colors, not a whole new cover like The Encore. Yes, this is not a double album case like The Tortured Poets Department, nor does it have a physical release (yet), but I'm not sure how this negates the purpose of showing the alternate cover. Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition is not a double album either, yet it also shows its reissue artwork. The Encore also has its own single as shown in the infobox, so displaying its artwork above is helpful and relevant. InsiderChiari (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
The Encore is not the most popular cover of the album. It did not surpass the original in significance. ℛonherry☘ 12:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
So? InsiderChiari (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete – deluxe cover, not critically significant in its own right. No detriment to the reader from its omission. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Elephantranges. The overall purpose of having the deluxe cover is for people to actually see the artwork rather than have to find on the internet what the cover looks like. If the cover gets deleted, we quintessentially are causing a considerable waste of viewer's time just to see the cover and then they can't find it. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
"we quintessentially are causing a considerable waste of viewer's time just to see the cover and then they can't find it" Well, it is not lost media to claim something that drastic. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
I do apologise, you're correct and unfortunately, I was up late at night trying to write an argument when I barely had any caffeine, so my apologies sincerely. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I sort of agree. But the user does have the ability to either go to Apple Music, Spotify or even just Google the image as @Tbhotch has demonstrated. I do still think it should be kept on the page as the cover is completely different to avoid confusion. TobyKohlhagen (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with that statement, it's just because I tried to find it scattered around on the internet right on the announcement date/ release day rather than go straight to music platforms. So thanks for the insight into my errors. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

To make a refined argument as to what I previously stated: Keep I personally believe that the artwork should remain because with this being an extended edition of the album with songs promoted as singles to promote this extended edition, it would make more sense for that edition's cover to remain on the page. I still believe we could waste readers' time if we have to make them search it on the internet rather than present it on the page, although the statement I made was heavily dramatized. Please consider keeping the image. Thank you. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep this cover is drastically different from the original and is not a minor change like most deluxe covers (e.g. Midnights (3am Edition). TobyKohlhagen (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep The encore was officially released as a double album, even though the second disc only has four songs. Since she released "Patient Zero" as a single and users may be confused about what "The Encore" is, I think the image is in fact necessary for users' understanding. Plus, basically anything Taylor Swift does receives significant coverage, so leaving this image off will only hurt the article in the long run. Plattenum (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@Plattenum: Has it hurt this article or Midnights' article "in the long run" to leave off the 10 other covers or however many she released for those (in the case of TLOAS, the alternate covers she put out initially)? Hardly. Skyversay (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Midnights situation is not the same. Its reissue covers (3am, Til Dawn and Late Night editions) have very minimal differences from the original, and the arguably more distinct ones (Jade Green, Blood Moon and Mahogany variants) didn't give any additional content or received much coverage. The Encore received massive media coverage, provided a good chunk of content as a separate disc, and the cover is very different from the standard. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
It really is not "very different" from the standard cover, as I pointed out the similarities above. The aesthetic is the same. Skyversay (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree with you and the above user. The snarky response of the opposing user just shows their lack of knowledge on the subject, so they shouldn't even be participating in this discussion at all. InsiderChiari (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with both of your statements.Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Estar8806's reasoning above. Consider substituting this non-crucial cover art with "a shot of Swift standing up with a flapper dress on against a pink and black background that mirrors the cut-up style of the original" in prose instead of Wikipedia utilizing additional non-free images. Skyversay (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I can see arguments for both keeping and deleting the image, but in this case the article dedicates an entire section to the reception of this specific edition of the album. Given that level of coverage, displaying the corresponding artwork helps readers identify and understand the edition being discussed, rather than serving merely as an additional decorative cover variant. --Sricsi (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I do agree with you as well. Daylight Swiftie 14 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree, especially taking the critical reception section into consideration. InsiderChiari (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The cover differs significantly from the original, is widely distributed, and has received critical commentary that is sourced in the article. It meets the instructions at Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. Medxvo (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Unlike the 50 other variants of this album that are more so collector’s items than separate releases, this one is for a separate deluxe release with new tracks, a lead single, and significant coverage. The cover is also significantly different enough from the original to warrant inclusion, it’s not like some of the other deluxes where they just added DLX or Deluxe to the title and slightly changed the hue, this is a whole separate image. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, a separate deluxe edition with new tracks that performed well on the charts and has received much coverage, especially in relation to its cover art. 750 h+ 06:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

September 18

File:Actor Peter Fraser (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:FREER as Peter Fraser appears to still be alive. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

He's actually in the possibly living people category as it is unknown whether he's still alive or not as there has been no news about him since the 2003 documentary the image is from. I asked Toby Hadoke on Bluesky and even he doesn't know if Peter Fraser is alive. Spectritus (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, if thats so then please update the file's description and I will withdraw the discussion. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 21:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Spectritus (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

September 17

File:Lowkey wr screenshot.png

[edit]

Non-free screenshot being used in the main infobx of Minecraft speedrunning that has WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) issues. While it's true that the vide game Minecraft itself is under copyright protection so that the images seen during game play need to be treated as non-free content, it is possible for someone (even the game's copyright holder) to take a screenshot during game play and then release that screenshot under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes while also using a non-free license for the game imagery. So even though the act of taking a screenshot itself is typically a mechanical reproduction that doesn't generate copyright protection in and of itself, such a file would still need to be treated as non-free because of the copyrighted game imagery it shows. This particular screenshot, on the other hand, is non-free not only because of the images seen during game play but also because the person who uploaded the video to YouTube is claiming copyright protection over their video. So, there's a double non-free aspect to the file with copyrights being held by two different copyright holders for two different reasons, and this is a problem (at least based on my understanding) per NFCC#1. This particular screenshot also has issues per NFCC#8. Even though it's a screenshot of the current (as of August 2026) world record, there's basically just a single sentence about the record added on to the end of the lede section of the article and a simple mention of the current record in Minecraft speedrunning#World record progression. Neither of these two things require the reader see a non-free screenshot to understand who the current world record holder is or what the current world record time is. Readers can more than sufficiently understand such content just from text alone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

About the problematic copyright of the screenshot, I can definitely reach out to skycrab for a VRT or something else, so that's (for now) a non-issue. Regarding the world record progression section, there is a similar table of world records on the Super Mario Bros. speedrunning page at Any% world record progression. That page also has a screenshot of the game from an old record (or record attempt). Readers can definitely sufficiently understand it from just the text, but I believe the images still help. Tagging @Dwarfroe. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg

[edit]

Redundant to File:Scottish National Party logo 2016.svg and File:Democratic Unionist Party logo.svg (the latter of which is an exact duplicate, except for being only black and white) so unclear exactly what adding these "Election symbols" to the infobox in addition to existing logos actually adds to the articles. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 Adding these symbols are still quite important as they are what a british voter sees on a ballot during election day GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I could handle the DUP's file getting deleted, but the SNP is quite differentiated from the main logo. There's a reason on why |symbol= is a parameter. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider the same symbol and the same "SNP" in the same font arranged slightly differently to be sufficient to meet WP:NFCC8. Regarding the symbol parameter we aren't obliged to use it. It makes sense for example for the likes of Muttahida Qaumi Movement – Pakistan (and other parties in Pakistan) where electoral symbols are different to the party's logo, but when the symbol is just a duplicate or similar to their logo it doesn't make much sense and just clutters the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 They still help the reader with understanding on what symbol does the target party uses to represent themselves. Might as well delete the other files uploaded by different people by that logic. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Other redundant symbols could well be deleted, but I'm dealing with these first. FDW777 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 and even if you were to go foward with these ideas, then other people who previously also uploaded other symbols will oppose your action. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777 you reverted my edits reverting your edits and ignored my pings in the talk page of the afformentioned article (and not even redirect me to this page).

I'll contact someone at WP:3O about this tomorrow. I'll also revert and unrevert your deletion notice so that the file doesn't get deleted while we discuss about this. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment File:Scottish National Party ballot logo.svg is not copyrightable in the United States, so it should not be subject to NFCC. Not sure about the United Kingdom, but supposedly the threshold of originality there has been raised recently. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 I will take note of that. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, this file fails the threshold of originality in the United States. But it doesn't means this file is eligible for Commons. Still copyrighted in the UK. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

September 11

File:LeonDoliceChryslerBuildingPastel1945.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://bid.peterboroughauctions.us/online-auctions/peterborough-auctions-llc/leon-dolice-1892---1960-chrysler-building-new-york-city-1940s-7171452

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceRainyDayOil1940.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/landscape-paintings/leon-dolice-rainy-day-new-york-city-modernist-urban-cityscape-mid-century-street-scene/id-a_9907362/

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:LeonDoliceEmpireStateBuildingFromMadisonSquareColorWoodcut1935.png

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Shouldn't a search of records in the US Copyright Office be sufficient? (https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/) Delabrede (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've answered this question at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeonDoliceThirdAveElOil1940.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Leon-Dolice-Empire-State-Building-from-M/4ADD9C57AD37BA00E85CCE08CA125C07

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:NMIFA crest.svg

[edit]

File:NMIFA crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I want a discussion about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality and how the US Copyright Office would judge such a logo. Someone also uploaded a raster version of this logo to Wikimedia Commons, which I nominated for deletion as a way to start a discussion about this logo. You can have your opinion. If it's below the threshold of originality, the vector version will be moved to Commons. If it's above, the raster version will be deleted from there, and the vector will be kept locally at English Wikipedia as a fair use logo. You can also join the discussion at Commons here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sasquatch and Techie3 voted to keep the raster file at Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Look like below threshold, but could be wrong.Techie3 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

[edit]

This is in a bit of a weird spot. It's a German magazine republishing an image which may be hosted on Commons for the reasons outlined at File:St Paul's Survives.jpg. I'm not sure about German copyright and threshold of originality, but this can certainly be relicensed as PD-US-free if the block of text next to "Die City von London brennt!" is blurred. I'm not sure about a move to Commons, but I personally would not consider this a derivative work of the image in a legal sense. Therefore, we could have something like PD-text for the components of the German magazine (minus that block of text) and PD-US-no renewal for the image for a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Crickets. Anyway, oppose move to commons for unknown legality issue, and please make sure fair use rationale is done. Techie3 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

[edit]

This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons The flip seems to come from https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=945cd22c17384fa3913d9e6854a7c48d&mediatype=photo. However, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News looks to be the actual originator of the photo, preceding the April publications by the AP by several months. This newspaper seems to have lacked notice, so the photo itself is PD.

However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.

If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also an interesting advertisement that is free by virtue of having no notice for it [https://www.newspapers.com/image/382105267/?match=1&terms=%22spoony%20singh%22/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.

As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.

So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Common face of one euro coin.png

[edit]

I do not think this is non-free due to common (not national) sides of Euro coins being freely licensed. Reproduction of euro coins is allowed, and there are many free images of euro coins available on Wikimedia Commons. The only restriction that applies to Euro coins is prohibiting damaging the image of the euro, but that's only a non-copyright restriction. - MJGTMKME123 19:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Support - this side of the Euro coin seems free per COM:CUR Euro. Move to Commons if it does not already exist there? -Consigned (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There are many Euro coin images available on Commons that are similar to or identical to these (apparently) non-free images:

File:Euro_1_cent.gif (free version) — File:1 cent euro coin common side.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_2_cent.gif (free version) — File:2_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_5_cent.gif (free version) — File:5_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro 10 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_10_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 20 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_20_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 50 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_50_eurocent_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro_1_coin.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_one_euro_coin_(first_series).jpg (non-free version)
File:Piece_Comm-2Euro_(pile).jpg (free version) — File:Common_face_of_two_euro_coin_(2007).jpg (non-free version)

- MJGTMKME123 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Some of the photos on Commons don't have their authorship tagged correctly; see e.g. . It is questionable if they would survive a deletion request. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use images of Euro coins under WP:NFC. However, I'm unsure if the enwiki photos are truly nonfree, or if commons:Template:PD-Art applies. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
I think a Wikimedia Commons user creating and uploading new, freely licensed euro coin photos would be better. - MJGTMKME123 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The PD-Art template is for 2D artworks, coins are considered as 3D artwork, so the pictures themselves could be copyrighted. Therefore, I think that the non-free EU coin common side images should be deleted and replaced with free ones (if they already exist, otherwise new ones can be created) Soviet Pepega (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

update: transfer to Commons, as coins scans are permitted on Commons without license. Janhrach (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
But are those coin scans or photographs? In any case, delete the non-free files and replace them with free ones. - MJGTMKME123 15:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
But are those coin scans or photographs? – Well, I don't know, Commons already does host near-identical pictures (ones linked above). Janhrach (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

September 9

File:Big Brother 26 USA Logo.png

[edit]

Months after the prior FFD was closed as "no consensus", I have still kept wondering why this generic-looking(?) title card is used instead of this poster (Facebook). Indeed, this title card is not as unique as one from an All-Star season, but perhaps I shouldn't be using the WP:OTHERIMAGE argument.

In the prior FFD, one "keep" voter insisted that there must be a plausible reason to delete this generic-looking(?) title card. If neither ordinariness of the title card nor using the poster as a replacement is a sufficient reason to delete this, then why couldn't I find a plausible reason to keep this image other than... "there's nothing wrong with this image"? (WP:HARMLESS is a shortcut to a section of WP:AADD instead of WP:AAIDD, to be frank.) George Ho (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it is the logo of the season, its based on the AI technology that the season's theme is based on. It was the titlecard in every episode. What the other person is trying to change it to is a promotional logo that was never used other than previews before the rebrand in the first episode. Nobo71 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thinking back about what you said, I can't help wonder whether replacing thematic title cards of Big Brother 27 (American season) (FFD discussion) and of Big Brother 28 (American season) with promotional posters were right decisions. Indeed, even representing a theme didn't prevent a such title card from deletion. BTW, the red ripples background thing (which I said in that FFD discussion) turns out to be a zoomed-in fingerprint. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

September 4

File:FC Girondins de Bordeaux logo.svg

[edit]

France has its own template regarding threshold of originality. This logo is below the threshold of originality and must be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons, per nom. SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

August 30

File:Hainaut (new logo).png

[edit]

The copyright holder for this logo is the Belgian municipality, not the person who uploaded it to Logopedia.

Should be converted to fair use if decision is delete on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a non-free logo. If the file is deleted from Commons, it should be made PD-US. If it's kept, the file at Commons should become PD-textlogo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Evo.jpg

[edit]

Apache licensed per GitHub Jay Cubby 18:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I recently uploaded this using the logo option of Special:upload which has it as fair use. I seem to recall noticing the Apache licence at some point but wasn't sure of the implications as that's not an option in that form. I have no objections to it being changed if that's more correct. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg

[edit]

NFCC #8. Totally unnecessary image. This quote and its misappropriation is already discussed in its own section on the associated page. The resolution, when pushed down to meet NFC requirements, also literally makes the quote unreadable, further limiting its utility and making it all-the-more unnecessary. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This JPG serves as the main illustration at the top of the page Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. The fact that we show the poster to the reader emphasizes the fact that FFL has published lies to fit their point of view.
The image shows the layout of the Campus Outreach poster used by FFL to promote their view on abortion. The layout of the poster is only shown in the image, not described in prose. There is more to this image than simple text.
The poster's text being "unreadable" can be corrected by increasing the size of the scan as suggested by Diannaa six years ago at File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg. I should have taken her advice back then. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons If this image was non-free, I would 100% agree with deletion, since the bar for non-free media is that it must be a substantial improvement over text, which this is not (the design is not the main focus, it's the text itself). However, the primary component of this ad (the stuff in the black box) is not copyrightable. It consists of three elements, none of which are individually subject to copyright:

an inverted version of File:Susan B. Anthony cph.3a46878.jpg with slightly different levels,
the text "another anti-choice fanatic", which is too unoriginal,
the quotation, published in 1889, fell into the public domain long ago

As an arrangement of three uncopyrightable elements, it is probably not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Now, I'm not nearly as sure about the white box at the bottom. Is the text there copyrightable? Even if we did say yes, we could just crop out of the white box or suppress it (similar to File:White House edits NY Times's Kilmar Abrego Garcia headline.png) and still communicate much the same idea. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

August 25

File:Hanoi Jane.jpg

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion in reliable sources about which photo (or photos) gave Jane Fonda the nickname of Hanoi Jane and was the controversial one among the American public. The Guardian calls the non-free photo the infamous photo, but it then states that there were multiple photos and that There was outrage at the pictures (emphasis added). The Hollywood Reporter uses this public domain image and calls it The 1972 Photo That Turned Jane Fonda Into “Hanoi Jane”. The National Women's History Museum says it was the infamous photograph of Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft bomber appearing to aim at American planes, however, that caused this disdain to spread amongst the general public., which matches up with the description of the public domain image. The Telegraph describes the photo as a picture that was taken of her surrounded by Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft gun. Washington Times (yellow at WP:RSP) says the photo showed Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun targeting U.S. planes, laughing and clapping with enemy soldiers, which matches up with the non-free image.

I did go hunting for this image in contemporary newspapers to prove it was public domain, but I could not find this image at all. I'd argue this image either fails NFCC #8 (not being the correct photo) or NFCC #1 (the public domain image from the same event either also inspired the same controversy or shows how Fonda was perceived by the American public at the time). Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep the photo. We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors, especially the Nixon administration, to paint her as treasonous. Hershberger says in the 2005 book Jane Fonda's War that it was any and all of the photos taken from a particular day in late July 1972 showing Fonda talking with and listening to young Vietnamese people outside of Hanoi. But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. So there's no reason to delete it, or search for a better photo. Note that Fonda would have been targeted as "Hanoi Jane" without any photo evidence at all; Nixon had it out for her. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
We should be telling the reader that multiple photos taken on the same day have been collectively used by Fonda's detractors So just say that in text? We do not necessarily need to have every photo or even two photos of the same event to communicate that point.

But especially grating to Fonda's detractors is any photo showing her sitting on the anti-aircraft gunner's seat, which is what Fonda is doing in the listed photo. But she's doing exactly that in File:Jane Fonda looking through anti-aircraft gun scope.webp. The point of this nomination is not to say that the public domain image is necessarily better, but rather that these two photos have the same encyclopedic purpose, meaning that the non-free photo fails NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
There are more options than deleting one photo. The photo in question was probably published without copyright notice in the same manner as the one you wish to replace it with. It can be moved to Commons in that case. Or another photo of the same event can be used; the book The Vietnam War The Definitive Illustrated History has a great one on page 275, showing more of the gun and the Vietnamese reporters holding microphones out toward her. The UK tabloid The Daily Mail shows this same photo and another related one. Tineye.com says there are 300 instances of the photo online. I'm making these suggestions because the free photo from Commons is terrible quality and fails to show the context. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
I looked through 70s newspapers for this exact photo, but I was unable to find any such publications (in fact, that's why I have significant personal doubts about whether this is the correct image, but I acknowledge that's WP:OR on my part). Therefore, I do not believe the nominated file is in the public domain.

Ultimately, any non-free image of this event would have to overcome NFCC #1. Even though the public domain image is low quality, it still succeeds at fulfilling the encyclopedic purpose of why the public was outraged at Fonda. Using the public domain image and a non-free one would be untenable in light of NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Magnesium torch Cousteau.png

[edit]

This does not meet NFCC, as the purpose of the image is simply to showcase a device and how it is used. The subject being "the most notable user of such a device" is not relevant, unless the episode/exploration itself were the object of discussion. Free-licensed photos of underwater use of magnesium torches could definitely either exist or be created – in fact, the article already contains a photo depicting overwater use. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The overwater use is a stretch, not the historically common use, and therefore not really relevant as a lead image. I searched several hours trying to find a free-license photo of underwater use and could not. I uploaded that single frame showing Jacques Cousteau because I could find nothing else; therefore I felt it qualified because I couldn't find an adequate substitute to illustrate scuba diving with a magnesium torch. The only other alternative would be to grab a frame from a black-and-white episode of Sea Hunt where magnesium torches were used at least once, but such an image would have the same issues. I also observed that the word "torch" has an unfortunate second meaning in the UK synonymous with "flashlight", causing searches for "magnesium torch" to be dominated by electric flashlights with magnesium cases. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort trying to find a replacement. If you want to put more effort into illustrating the article, I will leave you a tip: You could reach out to some authors of a good non-free photo and ask them to release under a free license – I often do that to illustrate topics I want to support and it often succeeds. I usually have the best luck with small-scale individual users at Instagram and Flickr. Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

August 19

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png

[edit]

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This logo is non-copyrightable in the United States. What about Mexico's threshold of originality? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is a thing. ~2026-52257-74 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

August 15

File:Atlanta MLS.svg

[edit]

Maybe this logo can be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This logo is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Columbus Crew SC Logo.svg

[edit]

Logo below the threshold of originality, should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:ColoradoRapidsOld.png

[edit]

Below the threshold of originality, it should maybe be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: IMO, the soccer ball is included in the TOO. Ineligible for Commons. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
The ball design is too simple. Nothing complex. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The ball in the logo is basically a reproduction of the design made popular by the Adidas Telstar. So it is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Okay. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Galaxy logo (1996-2007).svg

[edit]

How did/would the US Copyright Office judge this logo? Copyrightable or not? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Chicago Fire SC logo.png

[edit]

I searched the US Copyright Office's records and couldn't find a registration for this logo. Is this copyrightable or not in their view? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:El Paso Locomotive FC logo.svg

[edit]

Is this logo copyrightable? I think not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolverhampton Wanderers FC crest.svg

[edit]

Is this logo at least PD-US? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep but relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}: The TOO is not meet in the United States, but still copyrighted in the UK + Northern Ireland. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

File:ColinCampbellRossImage.jpg

[edit]

In my opinion, there are doubts concerning the copyright notice of "fair use". However, it could not be eligible for Commons because this work could still be copyrighted in Australia, despite being PD in the United States only. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If that's a work by the Australian government or an Australian state, move to Commons, as crown copyright expires after 50 years. I think this photo was never published in the US before it could be copyrighted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

August 7

File:Tintin and the Black Island - Unicorn Theatre Company.jpg

[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. The photo itself is not subject to sourced critical commentary. Policy requires that a non-free image both enhance the readers' understanding of the article text and that its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. This image lacks contextual significance. The uploader contested the original deletion tag on the file's talk page. ✗plicit 07:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the Files for discussion archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

The discussions in this section have been nominated for at least 6 days. After 7 days, they may be closed.

October 18

File:2023 logo of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party.svg

Deleting file since it has potential to be free due to Brazil's loose TOO regulations. See license at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2023_logo_of_the_Brazilian_Social_Democracy_Party.svg.

https://web.archive.org/web/20261018020248/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2023_logo_of_the_Brazilian_Social_Democracy_Party.svg GuesanLoyalist (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

👍 PLATEL (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:F8. @GuesanLoyalist, if you are confident enough to move the file to Commons yourself (and I believe you were right to be in this case), you can tag the page for speedy deletion and avoid going through a FfD discussion. If you are unsure, better to wait until the discussion outcome is clear before moving it. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:54, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Tillie (right side).jpg

Delete unfree image. This file represents the original mural from a building that is now destroyed. There are now several freely-licensed images in commons:Category:Tillie (murals) that depict the mural, though almost all of them have telephone poles or wires obstructing the view. In my opinion, File:Front view of Palace Amusements in 2001.jpg, File:Boy standing in front of Palace Amusements in June 2004.jpg (though the top of Tillie's head is cut off), and File:Close-up view of the original Tillie mural.jpg (if a close-up of the right mural is desired, though with the top of his head and his ears cut off) would be the most suitable replacements. ForeverFlying (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NFCC1 in light of the existence of these three images that are just as good, if not better. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Darrell E. Brooks 2021.jpg

Delete and replace unfree mugshot with free Ring doorbell camera still. Also see the relevant Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack#Replacing fair use image of Darrell Brooks. There are several images and videos available in commons:Category:Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. from CCTV and Ring doorbell footage available now. Unfortunately, the images are significantly lower in quality than the unfree mugshot, especially due to the low contrast and grainy artifacts present in the stills. ForeverFlying (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep since the free alternatives are unsuitable. Psychloppos (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, ironically per nom: the images are significantly lower in quality than the unfree mugshot, especially due to the low contrast and grainy artifacts present in the stills.
Update: Delete and replace with File:Darrell Brooks in his 2021 police interrogation.png, a better alternative. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Choucas @Psychloppos Do you think that File:Darrell Brooks in his 2021 police interrogation.png would be better suited as a free media alternative? This still is from his interrogation video (recorded using a security camera), and one of the few moments he partially removes his face mask. ForeverFlying (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
While I still find the mugshot to be the ideal option, this is obviously much better than the doorbell image. Psychloppos (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC) EDIT: I made the change myself.

This is a much better alternative, I think this is now good enough to invalidate the fair use rationale. I'm updating my !vote accordingly. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Recent nominations

October 19

New Order - Complete Music and Music Complete

Do these meet the TOO for copyright protection? For the first file, both article sources (the band's official site and Rolling Stone) indicate a 13 May 2016 release date. Both the US and UK web stores for the record label indicate the same date as well, which would make this a case of simultaneous publication. Ditto for the second file (25 September 2015: article source, Mute US, Mute UK). Are these simple enough to qualify for moving to commons? Note: I recently uploaded newer versions of these files, as they were both previously png images embedded in svg. --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons As they are a simple assortment of geometrical shapes, I believe we should be quite comfortably below TOO. Thank you for the .svg conversion by the way. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

October 20

File:Live at the Detroit Jazz Festival - cover.jpg

This should be migrated to Commons.

Cover image is from File:Skyline of Detroit, Michigan from S 2014-12-07.jpg, which is released under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Addition of performer names does not cross the threshold of originality, and under the terms of the Creative Commons license this should by CC-BY-SA anyways. I was thinking of BOLD-ly moving this to Commons, but given the potential COI (I'm credited, though I was not involved in the project beyond my image being used), I figured it best to open this to the community. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Pre-emptive note that this does not necessarily apply to the reverse, which includes a lengthy quote that would certainly have attracted its own copyright (assuming the CC-BY-SA license does not automatically encompass the entire sleeve). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons, per both licensing of parent image and clearly below TOO text+yellow filter addition. Good that they credited you at least! Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:CodyWillard2007.jpg

Apparent long-undetected NETCOPYVIO. Uploaded August 2008, but here April 2007. Эlcobbola _talk 01:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Question WP:NETCOPYVIO is not a shortcut, did you have something else in mind? I am not sure I understand why the earlier date on the Wayback Machine pointing to the blog of the subject means it is a copyvio. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Prior publication on a presumably fully copyrighted website means that we need more evidence that the uploader was also the copyright holder than just their own assertion (especially when the item was uploaded more than a year later). NETCOPYVIO is a Commons shortcut which basically outlines that all items published to the internet should be assumed to be copyrighted unless demonstrated otherwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Carrie Bradshaw (The Carrie Diaries) by AnnaSophia Robb.jpg

Appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 - I don't see how this provides any more contextual information than the image used in the infobox. It appears to be used primarily for decoration. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep as this is a portrayal of the same character by a different actress, so WP:NFCC8 is passed in my opinion; WP:NFCC3A could be debatable, but as there are only two non free images on the page I think it is passed as well. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom; and especially in light of Commons:Category:AnnaSophia Robb in 2013; Given the character's non-descript appearance in the CW spinoff, I believe that these serve the same encyclopedic purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 01:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

October 21

File:3x4 cropped portrait of Helen Haines — June 2022.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. WP:G7 applies here. Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded to en.wikipedia.org instead of Commons Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:36, 21 October 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.

October 22

File:MagrittePipe.jpg

The painting should be public domain regardless of Duke’s claims.

Under URAA law, the painting was first created and “published” in the magazine La Révolution surréaliste in December 1929, while the mirrored version was published too that year, yes it was mirrored but it is the same painting regardless, and can mirroring even be copyrighted? Regardless, they’re the first publications of the painting.

Also as a foreign work created in 1929, it expired in 2025. So I would suggest bringing this back to a PD-US license. I could be wrong though and feel free not to, but I don’t see how this painting has a disputed copyright. FernWalters20 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment @FernWalters20 You mention Duke’s claims, I assume that means you have seen the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2025/January#Are we sure about The Treachery of Images? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 3#File:MagrittePipe.jpg? Because your own opinion on the matter is not going to be sufficient for me to !vote to overturn the previous consensus. Has something changed since then? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You do have a good point, but didn’t the duke page show a mirrored version from 1929? Personally, I count that as the publication of the painting even if it’s not the same angle.

I don’t know, I don’t know much about artwork publication that much. FernWalters20 (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Don-Slepian-Alles-Machine-1980.jpg

No source or evidence of Creative Commons license. Even assuming that the license is correct, there's no attributed source, so the "BY" part of CC-BY is violated. The file is not in use. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. A very quick search turned this up: iarchive:don-slepian-alles-machine-1980, so really there is not much doubt here. It would be perfect on Bell Labs Digital Synthesizer as well, so I am putting it there. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Victorious Season 1 Cast Promo Image.jpg

Fails #NFCC#1; a free equivalent is available at File:Victorious Cast in Concert.jpg (them in concert as their characters), but there's many other images of the characters in Commons:Category:Victorious (sitcom) if somebody wants to pick through them. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 02:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete because they are in character; I am not sure I can tell that from just looking at these two pictures since I am not familiar with the show, but I will trust the nominator on this one as the replacement is good enough. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

’’’Keep’’’ hard to view characters with the chosen image. Need clearer view. From the looks of it, this is a press image. Similar images are used for Henry Danger and I Carly as well. Winnie Fredrick (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want something official, then you can take your pick from the CC images released by the Nickelodeon Youtube channel, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_Victorious_by_NickRewind GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 22:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep for now, One thing I don't understand is several shows like Henry Danger and Wizards of Waverly Place use the same type of Non-free media information on thier character pages, unless I am missing something. The second issue is that this image that you would like to use isn't from a Victorious episode what so ever, it is from a live concert tour that was separate from the show, I think File:Victorious cast (6032811428) (cropped).jpg could be used, however if a better one could be found the better if we really need to go this route. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Istres FC crest.svg

France has its own tag regarding Threshold of Originality. This is below France ToO and needs to be moved to Commons. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:FC Istres logo.svg

France has it’s own ToO tag, so move to Commons. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

File:GoW3 Pandora's Box.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#8: The image depicts a physical item sold with God of War III collector’s editions, not an element whose visual identification is essential to understanding the game. The collector’s edition contents can be described adequately in text; the image adds no significant encyclopedic understanding of the game God of War III itself. Wcam (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete Even if the picture of the box is useful for the prose, a free image can be created of it. Buy it on a second hand shop, take a picture. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 00:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

October 23

File:Concord Camera Corp logo.png

Delete and replace with a wordmark for the company (which is below the threshold of originality to benefit from copyright protection) uploaded at File:Concord Camera Corporation wordmark.jpg. ForeverFlying (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg

WP:NFCC1, as long as these detention centers are still open, a freely licensed equivalent could be created. Additionally, the pages this image is used in, they are not specific to the detention camp in Lop County. So, an image of any other re-education camp in Xinjiang could portray the same thing, if a freely licensed picture were taken.

Overall, I don't find the non-free use justification for these pages compelling. The fact that a free alternative does not exist right now is usually not sufficient. And, unless the Chinese government closes these re-education centers in the future, a free equivalent could be created. There's no evidence to suggest that they have been closed, not in the article or based on anything I could find.

The uploader's justification from 2021 is

Reason for such opposition is that, per WP:NFCC, Non-free contebt is allowed when no free alternatives are available. Thr proposed method of taking an alternative by self is not possible due to local military, paramilitary, and police force having sufficient power and intention to critically endanger anyone seeking to do so, provided that anyone with such intention

Again, I don't find this convincing. A non-free image was already taken by someone on Baidu Baijiahao (presumably with the consent of the local authorities), and there's no requirements in NFCC that a free media image be an unauthorized image. Whether the uploader could take a picture of it themselves is not really relevant either, it mostly just comes down to whether a free version could be created or not.

Maayaaaaa (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

October 24

Audio clips of Tammy Wynette songs

Currently used samples may not help improve contextual understanding (WP:NFCC#8) of the legendary singer Tammy Wynette. Also, if one disagrees and rather insists on using at least one sample, the number of items should be "minimal". I think that three may have exceeded minimality needed. Delete by default if no one objects. --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Bank of North Dakota logo.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:Bank of North Dakota logo.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 00:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Leiadeathstar.jpg

Image doesn't provide additional info of subject; images of characters already in their respective articles TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep I do believe WP:NFCC8 is met here. It is a very representative image of these characters, because of their expressions, but also of the movie itself, because of the costumes, the lighting and the decor, all very unique. That we can have all of that on one single picture is actually quite impressive, and its minimal use is quite compelling to me. Non free files usage is evaluated in the context of the article they are on; the fact that these characters have a picture on their own page is not completely relevant here, especially since this one picture shows the three main characters of the movie in one go. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Textbook example of WP:NFC#UUI#8. This image is not subject to sourced critical commentary—in violation of WP:NFCC#8—so the claims about facial expressions, costumes, lighting, decor, etc. hold no water. ✗plicit 14:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maayaaaaa (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete – No longer need to have a photo of the then-young trio fighting for their lives. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

File:HelenHainesAttackWangaratta.png

Fails WP:NFCC7. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

No longer. I have re-added it on the page. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 04:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

and it's been removed again. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The image is too low-quality and doesn't illustrate much of relevance to the event. See MOS:IMAGEQUALITY for more information. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Mets retired 5.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:Mets retired 5.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 10:44, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

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 Forgotten 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 LLM Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WikiProject 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

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	3	10	31	43	87
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	15	16	10	41
RfD	0	0	0	65	65
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	3	10	31	43	87
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	15	16	10	41
RfD	0	0	0	65	65
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

How to use this page

Reasons for nominating a file

What not to nominate here

Nominate a file

Methods

Twinkle

Manual method

Discussion

Old discussions

Images that are too small

Discussions approaching conclusion

October 18

Recent nominations

October 19

New Order - Complete Music and Music Complete

October 20

October 21

October 22

October 23

October 24

Audio clips of Tammy Wynette songs

October 25

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	3	10	31	43	87
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	15	16	10	41
RfD	0	0	0	65	65
AfD	0	0	0	14	14