Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFDWP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	6	22	28
TfD	2	13	15
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	0	54	54
AfD	0	0	0

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public ___domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

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

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 August 31}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:Ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader=\|reason=}}` `~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2025 August 31}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:Ffd notice\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:Ffd notice multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}}` `~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{FFDC\|File_name.ext\|log=2025 August 31}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public ___domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1932, not 1926.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

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

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

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

Instructions for closing discussions

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

August 23

File:Lockheed-logo Winnie-Mae.png

[edit]

Possibly below TOO Jay Cubby 15:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg

[edit]

Invalid copyright notice: the left part is a fancy drawing, rather than "simple shapes". --Altenmann >talk 23:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am pretty certain it is just Arabic text arranged in a triangular shape. The US has a high threshold of originality, particularly for logos composed of text. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not "just Arabic text", just as ASCII art is not just "English text". It definitely involves a considerable degree of creativity, hence copyrightable. --Altenmann >talk 02:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Since nontrivial copyright issues are not for to a J.Random Wikipedian to decide, I suggest consulting Wikimedia lawyers to make their worth. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII characters arranged in a simple triangle (like this) would definitely be below the threshold of originality in the US. If you set aside your snarky, uncivil name-calling of me ("J.Random Wikipedian"? WTF?) and actually took the time to read the Wikimedia Commons page on US threshold of originality, which I deal with every day as a Commons administrator, you might become better informed. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JRW was a generic reference to !voters and I see nothing insulting. If you claim you are not a random Wikipedian, but rather someone special, then why are you so excited? OK, my comparison with ASCII art was not good indeed. Still, there is an art of arabic calligraphy, and, e.g. File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg is much simpler yet labelled non-free, and c:COM:TOO US does not consider this category. --Altenmann >talk 03:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sure you know what you were doing with the comment. While the Foundation does have lawyers, I think you can agree that it would be ridiculous for them to be brought in for every discussion involving a copyright issue. We discuss things as a community based on evidence. Anyone, a lawyer, layperson, admin, or an ordinary editor are all welcome to chime in to these discussions. While you are correct that c:COM:TOO US does not discuss calligraphy, the section below it (c:COM:SIG US) certainly does. It highlights the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) which notes that calligraphy is not generally protected under US copyright law. The files you cite may certainly have been mis-tagged as non-free by someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of this regulation. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free/delete: @IronGargoyle: I struggle to see your viewpoint. Even if caligraphy by itself isn't protected, the arrangement of it in a tower shape definitely is, since that is a conscious creative decision. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: The profile of building is just an isosceles triangle. Shapes don't get much simpler than that. Compare this to File:JeetKuneDo.svg (an example of a non-copyrightable logo from c:COM:TOO US). The characters are arranged in a circle and yet the copyright office would not register it (see also File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg). I am not saying that characters in the shape of something could never be copyrighted. Arrange Arabic characters in the shape of Donald Duck, and I would agree that would be copyrightable in the US. This is just a simple triangle though. I think we are getting caught up on the aesthetics of Arabic calligraphy. It has an evocative look, certainly, but the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices is very clear when it comes to calligraphy and we need to apply US standards, not UAE standards. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

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

August 24

File:The Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg

The file is not in the public ___domain in the UK per discussion both here, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 6#File:Dark Side of the Moon.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 23#File:Dark Side of the Moon.png, and at WikiCommons where it was deleted, [1]. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it has a US only tag

Crispybeatle (talk)

14:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The FFD discussion in July 2023 resulted in "no consensus", defaulting to "non-free" instead. Without much consensus to consider the album cover free in only English Wikipedia, the JPEG version should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright then

Crispybeatle (talk)

23:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Enwiki only requires images to be free in the USA, which this is. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erasure - Make Me Smile (Come Up and See Me).jpg

Sure, the Erasure version charted in a few continental European countries and the UK. Nonetheless, I'm doubtful that the single cover art is needed and contextually signifies the previously recorded song, "Make Me Smile (Come Up and See Me)". I'm also doubtful that omitting the cover art would impact readers' understanding of the main topic in question, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, charting on five national charts and one national subcharts, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps if the artwork were of yet another vinyl-disc label like the other ones used in the article, but this one cannot be described using words alone and also provides the reader with contextual significance, so WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 are not being violated. ~~If anything, the Duran Duran B-side artwork should be challenged.~~ ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Duran Duran vinyl label (File:Make Me Smile (Come Up and See Me) by Duran Duran B-side UK vinyl.jpg) is free to use, especially on Commons. Did you mean it's not in the public ___domain or anything? George Ho (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it was PD and now I'm left with egg on my face. Well, scratch that last remark. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cropped Photo of Jerry Adler.jpg

Not a valid assertion of fair use. Adler just died and someone could release a photograph under a compatible license. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

August 25

File:Gumball.PNG

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gumball.PNG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ive - Ive Secret.png

Potentially replaceable by File:Ive_Ive_Secret_Cover.jpg (this file may be renamed soon as this cover was prerelease), as the relevant album is still identifiable by the prerelease cover and styling. I am not entirely certain, so taking to FFD. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The digital cover I uploaded was for the EP release from Melon as linked, and I used it as how it's done per all other previous EPs. I'm not certain about the issue here either. @Paper9oll Able to advise regarding this? — Chyx1095 (🗣️ • 📜) 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doubting that, I am just checking that indeed the use follows NFCC1. I have seen cases of, for example, video game covers being uploaded when the logo suffices for identification. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is the official main cover and is therefore distinct. The version at Commons is possibly a pre-release promotional/placeholder cover considering it's sourced to Spotify; whether it is renamed or not is irrelevant here. It is also neither an official secondary nor an alternate cover thus cannot serve as a substitute nor include here as while "the album has been released with different album covers", the Commons version is neither of them. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Explainxkcd Logo.png

Derivative of xkcd characters, which have a Creative Commons noncommercial license (nonfree for Wikipedia's purposes). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg

I feel as if this is under the threshold for originality for the United States, though I am unsure about its origin country of Finland. Also, its used twice in the same article and I am unsure of what usage to keep. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the usages of the image has been removed, so that part of the discussion is no longer a concern. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about moving to commons, but it shouldn't be used in both the infobox and article. WP:VG suggests only having package art or similar things for the infobox, not screenshots of photos of the game, so I've removed it from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SHPSFlexcard.jpg

Are we sure this isn't above the WP:TOO? The bird looks quite original. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 10:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

File:London bendy bus.JPG

Orphaned, superseded by various files in c:Category:Articulated buses in the United Kingdom, like File:Go South Coast events fleet 2904 BX54 UDL rear.JPG. ✗plicit 06:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pizzicato2.JPG

Seems to be a photo of the Pizzicato Five and copyrighted per Google Lens and Tineye —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SimpsonsEatMyShorts.ogg

I think this file could be replaced with a different file:

The rational for Lisa's Sax appears incomplete (and could be in the article mostly because the file is already there)
This sample may not be accurate enough for Nancy Cartwright, as the audio sample is from an episode flashback where Bart Simpson is a kindergartener, and may be slightly more higher-pitched than Cartwright's regular voice for him.

If this does get replaced, I think an audio sample from either Do the Bartman or Deep, Deep Trouble could be used which could be used in which article it comes from (if the latter, it could replace the quote box in one of the paragraphs). Xeroctic (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

File:PortCastlP1010009.JPG

Unknown painting, who knows who "M.T Strange" is —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 14:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB21US Logo.png

The other copy of the title card (File:Big Brother USA 21 Logo.png) was PRODded and deleted without contest. The newest copy still is one of generic title cards, is similar to the other title card (File:BB19US Logo.png) used in Big Brother 19 (American season), and doesn't help readers contextually understand Big Brother 21 (American season). Thus, it may still fail WP:NFCC#8. —George Ho (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo should be used then? These are taken from CBS and used only in season 21. This clearly is a logo for the season and even can be used in the caption that states that. It even makes a campier/wood 'Big Brother' in the logo to go with the camp theme of the summer. JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this cover art of the 21st season from Plex? (For better viewing, a web browser instead of the mobile app itself should do.) —George Ho (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or either poster from Facebook: poster #1, poster #2? —George Ho (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 18:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current logo is fine. Different from all other season as this seasons main twist element/summer theme was "Camp BB". If looking at this image alone you can know which season it is from for this reason. This is the same for BB25 with the BB Multiverse logo, BB26 with the BB A.I logo and BB27 with the BB Hotel Mystère logo. JoyfullySmile (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If looking at this image alone you can know which season it is from for this reason. Not all readers are Big Brother viewers or fans, ya know, and without numbers or cast photo in a title card, how can non-fans or general readers tell the difference among title cards or logos? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I dont know. Its whatever. JoyfullySmile (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say if you want to police logos or find solutions for them ALL Big Brother logos on BBUK are just eye logos. How can you tell them apart? ALL BBCAN logos are just Big Brother Canada. How can you tell them apart? BBAUS same thing all different eyes. Bigg Boss same exact thing. Its just a Big Brother thing. I think its fine. They all don't need to have a number. But I don't want to keep trying to find solutions so I'll leave that for you. You can add whatever photo you think will fit. JoyfullySmile (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about the Big Brother UK logos after this discussion then. George Ho (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would what you said just now imply that, to almost(?) all readers, the title card (still listed for discussion) may not be contextually significant after all, i.e. understanding of the season itself possibly unaffected by omission of this title card? George Ho (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you want to take from it sure delete every logo from all tv show pages they're so unimportant and useless. Tell all designers to stop making them as they aren't needed for anything. JoyfullySmile (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Why am I not surprised by your WP:DELETEALL arguments? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't be of more help. Good Luck JoyfullySmile (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

File:Gazebo screenshot v5.0.png

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gazebo screenshot v5.0.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ray Oldenburg, author of The Great Good Place.jpg

Appears at [2]. I suspect that is a scan of an image in a new edition of The Great Good Place given the weird rotation, but I can't prove it since I don't have a copy. Regardless, given the weird rotation and the fact that the uploader has already uploaded one copyrighted file as freely licensed, I do not believe they hold the copyright over this work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the image appears on a publisher site here before it was ever uploaded, the claim to being the copyright holder is not credible. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney Powell.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'. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improper NFCC. The subject of the photo used is alive and a free-use image could reasonably be taken of her. This fair-use photo is not irreplaceable. Veggies (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:F7b, image from press agency is assumed to fail NFCC#2. Additionally, the image is replaceable and the fair use rationale is clearly copied from somewhere else as it makes nonsensical references. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 29

File:Moments before the death of Affan Kurniawan.png

Does not meet all of the WP:NFCC, in particular WP:NFCC#8- the image does not significantly enhance the article more than the text on August 2025 Indonesian protests#Death of Affan Kurniawan (where this image was being shown before being removed by another user) already explains this event. Also multiple of the NFCC listed on the image upload are frankly incorrect, including 8: for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article- as this is not on a biographical article, and 2: The use of this picture must be limited to discussing the chronology of Affan Kurniawan's death. It would be irresponsible if the owner has a potential commercial interest in its use. - claiming irresponsibility is not a valid proof of protecting commercial interests. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to give my opinions on this.

For the point "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article", this image was intended to be used in the section of the article containing the short biography of Affan Kurniawan. Initially, the article was named "Death of Affan Kurniawan" (as you can see in the edit history). However, the article was then redirected to "August 2025 Indonesian protests". As of now, we do have a new article containing the biography of Affan Kurniawan. I believe the photo can be uploaded there instead to comply with NFCC.

For the point " It would be irresponsible if the owner has a potential commercial interest in its use", the “potential commercial interest” clause was not meant to argue irresponsibility, but to highlight that the image is unlikely to be available under free license due to ownership restrictions. I agree that the phrasing could have been clearer.

This is my first time uploading a non-free content under fair use, so please excuse me for these mistakes as I still have a lot to learn from Wikipedia.

Regards, Udaradingin (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Londongame001inprogress.jpg

Derivative of the copyrighted London Tube map the wub "?!" 21:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good quality image anyway; delete for copyright issues. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 09:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuelta a Mallorca-logo 2023.png

This is not the general logo for the Vuelta a Mallorca it's a specific logo for the 2023 event (as XXXII clearly displays it's for the 32nd event). As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. A general logo for the event- if that exists- could be acceptable, but a 2023 specific logo on a general event article is not acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 logo image was replaced with a general version Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

File:Isawheragain.jpg

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:I Saw Her Again - Even If I Could - ad 1966.jpg (already in use at I Saw Her Again) per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elton John Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.jpg

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. The advertisement was determined to be PD per c:COM:DR/File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consensus varies in different forms. If neither WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS nor WP:CONBUILD is applicable, then how do you determine the level of consensus from that discussion? George Ho (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONLEVEL, there is no consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors (eg. a back-and-forth of two users with a couple others chiming in), at one place and time (eg. within 21 hours), cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject (eg. WikiProject Songs) cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline (eg. the non-free content criteria) does not apply to articles within its scope. (comments and interpretation added) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free album cover is already understood to apply to album covers, but you have done nothing to show that single cover art is any different. The template's page even specifies that "this template should be used for covers from all types of audio recording releases, not just albums, despite the name of the template." This is because single cover art, or even EP cover art, is no different from an album cover as far as this discussion is concerned. In that discussion, JG66 makes a convincing rebuttal to what you are doing here. Tkbrett (✉) 11:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Today is August 31 2025. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 August 31 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===August 31===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

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

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