Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 16

June 16

File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image's role of illustrating Iron Man can be achieved with c:File:DSC09902 - Tony Start and Ironman (37081230641).jpg on Commons; thus, it fails WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: This article is clearly about the character in comic books, and as such, a main image of the subject should be used, and comics articles typically are allowed at least one non-free file in the infobox alone. The image suggested in question is a wax statue from the Movieland Wax Museum of the Stars (Ontario), so it is far from an accurate depiction of the comics character and closely resembles a recreation of one of the film character's suits instead. A better place for the Commons file would be at Iron Man's armor or Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe), not unilaterally replacing the main comics image. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:Iron Man, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/United States comics work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group. Reason: Relevant talk pages for this subject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article is about the comic book character. Ergo, the infobox image should depict Iron Man as he appears in the comics. Unless Marvel decided to release a drawing of the character that's in the public ___domain - highly doubtful - a copyrighted image has to be used. Anything else, like a wax sculpture, is simply not accurate to the character as he is in the comics. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. An image of a wax statue does not accurately represent a comic book character enough to justify the removal of a comic book image. It is not just about the character's design and overall look, but also about how the character looks in the primary medium (with the art style and such). When I am looking up an article on a comic book character, I would expect to see an image of them from an actual comic book. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose flawed nomination. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 17 June 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.

File:Beatification of Edmund Rice Banner.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description says this file is published "October 6, 1996" so it most likely is still copyrighted ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment no, the description says it was taken from something that happened on October 6, 1996. I strongly suspect the original significantly predates that. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Banner from the October 6, 1996 Beatification," which clearly implies this is a posthumous beatific portrait.

This BBC article also says the artwork is copyrighted, but it doesn't say who exactly. Going off its list of credits, it appears to be "Edmund Rice Primary School." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rice was beatified in 1996, meaning that the portrait must have been made on or after that date. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:03, 18 June 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.

File:Dance Again music video Jennifer Lopez Casper Smart.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second image from the same music video used in the article, and its necessity for understanding the text is not clearly explained. It should be deleted as it does not comply with WP:NFCC#8. Sricsi (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added this screenshot when I nominated one of previous screenshots for discussion. Nonetheless, no objections to deleting/omitting this image when no one else objects. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 16 June 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.

File:Turabian A Manual for Writers Ninth Edition.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple text and color combinations should not be above TOO US. Jay Cubby 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/PD I concur with nom. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 17 June 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.

File:Lodestone games logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possibly non-notable games. The main article was redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodestone Games. 216.247.95.184 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a company that folded. Non-notable...so is the logo Buffs (talk) 23:16, 17 June 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.

File:NBC Red Network.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons. The typical process for transferring files to Commons, as suggested here, is to eventually delete the local copy via CSD F8 after the transfer is complete unless the uploader requests a {{Keep local}} or some other mechanism prevents its transfer over. It also doesn't matter who transfers the files in the end, as the tool most people use keeps and attributes all upload history upon import, even if the user doesn't have an account on Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was created in 1926 (1927 for NBC Blue Network). When we considered the copyright term of these logos, both files are considered copyright-expired, and they may not registered the copyright of these logos at all. So, please delete them from Wikipedia and place the similar file at Wikimedia Commons instead. This discussion affects the fellow file below.

Keep both Both are clearly out of copyright/PD. I see no reason to remove them. If anything, they should be moved to commons. Buffs (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kept both but transfer to Commons Both logos are no longer protected by copyright, assuming that they register the copyright of the logo 99 years ago. We could put both files at Commons as PD-US-Expired instead. 2404:8000:1037:587:48C2:8F7:4225:ACE4 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the consensus, given I uploaded the files (a long time ago) I can export them both to Commons. :) Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 19:59, 22 June 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.