Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19

< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep only in Arms of Canada, and Remove from all other articles. See "comments from the closing admin", below. – Quadell (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lexicon ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have common file File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE This Non-free SVG has been here since 2007 and it is the only accurate image of the 1994-present coat of arms of Canada. The Commons file you linked looks NOTHING like the real thing. It lacks a compartment, it uses ermine fur for the mantling instead of maple leaves, it lacks a maple leaf in the head of the helm, and many many more mistakes. To use it would be an absolute mockery of the real thing and a dis-service to our readers. I can not possibly oppose this in any stronger terms. Fry1989 eh? 01:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to make sure your aware of the 2 images we are talking about - File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg is based off of File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1).svg that is not real or a good representation of the real one.... or we have File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (the real one used since 2007).Moxy (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, the blazon of the coat of arms is in the public domain. As the blazon is in the public domain, an unfree image is unacceptable as anyone else can create a free replacement based on the same blazon. See WP:NFCC#1 and Commons:COM:COA. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear you think its best to delete the image even though no replacement has been made that is up to par correct? Should we not deleter the image only after a replacement is made as per the policy your pointing to - "no free equivalent is available"?Moxy (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the next part of WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". A free replacement can clearly be created. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where your headed - but if i am not wrong.... this is the only coat of arms of Canada designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority - there for - there is no free use alternative possible. You cant copy it or make some sort of replica thats even close to how it actually looks as its copyrighted - correct? We don't normally make up stuff here on Wikipedia or use fake original research version that don't have the proper symbols (that is content) do we?.Moxy (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coats of arms are defined by text, not by art. There is a discussion about this matter at sv:Diskussion:Huddinge kommunvapen, but sadly I'm having trouble finding anything in English about it. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Heraldic Authority says that this is "the current official artistic rendition of the arms of Canada", so some other person's interpretation of the blazon is not equivalent. I don't care what some other organization or heraldry expert says, the CHA is the legal authority on heraldry for Canada and therefore the CHA's opinion is what matters for this particular coat of arms. Grandmartin11 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same blazon Stefan and I'm honestly surprised you don't to see that. One uses ermine fur for mantling and the other uses maple leaves. That alone is a major difference and can not be explained away as being simply artistic license in interpreting what the blazon says the mantling should be made of. If they both used maple leaves and they simply were different styles of drawing the maples leaves, perhaps, but not like this. The Commons file is an absolute mockery of the truth, a fiction, a marriage of different parts from the 1957 arms and 1994 arms. It is a lie, clear and simple, and it would be a massive unforgivable disservice to our readers and the project to replace an accurate image with something so foreign and with so many mistakes. Fry1989 eh? 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#1 does not require a freely licensed image based on the same blazon to exist. The only requirement is that it should be possible to create a freely licensed image based on the same blazon, and this is obviously possible. As stated above, WP:NFCC#1 only requires that a freely licensed replacement can be created. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not avoid the implied question. You said "Both images are equally correct as they are both based on the same blazon" in your vote to delete. That is clearly false to anyone who is keen to observe the differences between the two images. Now do you still wish to claim such in your reasoning for this image to be deleted??? In any case, your amended reasoning is still flawed, a free alternative can not be created, the current 1994 version is under crown copyright and facsimiles would not be accepted on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is simply a matter of someone more familiar with commons over Wikipedia - original research is the problem here - over at commons they dont care about OR.Moxy (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely familiar with Commons as I spend most of my time there, and I can state with near absolute certainty that a reasonable facsimile would not be accepted there. The Commons file is a marriage of different parts from both the 1957 and 1994 coats of arms of Canada, it does not show the arms as they have ever been used, and it is an absolute fake. Fry1989 eh? 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE - The proposed replacement does not match the current official version of the coat of arms maintained by the Canadian Heraldic Authority (shown here and here) in numerous respects, as noted by Fry1989. The mockery you propose as a replacement should be what is up for deletion here. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposed image is inappropriate and should be deleted. Derivative images fall under the Canadian Copyright Act. trackratte (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all articles except Arms of Canada. This is only one particular artistic representation of the arms, and while it is the official one, it is unfortunately non-free. It should therefore be used only where it is specifically necessary to mention and discuss the official artistic representation. (And it seems the only place where a discussion of the artistic representations of the arms is relevant is in the Arms of Canada article.) In cases where the arms themselves are called for, irrespective of the particular artistic depiction, then a free version should be used. I acknowledge that a free, heraldically correct version does not currently exist, but since the arms are originally and officially defined by a textual description, such a version could be constructed. WP:NFCC#1 therefore applies. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#1 doesn't apply at all, there is no free realistic honest alternative, nor can one be created at this time. Trust me, I and so many others have tried that route and it goes nowhere. Sodacan has probably seen more requests then he cares to count for the Canadian coat of arms, and if anybody can do it he's the one. He does not feel safe in doing so and for good reason. In any case, a free alternative does not exist and the Commons file is an absolute joke. Until such time as one does exist, there is no point in speculating, we have to deal with what we have before us.
As for your belief that the file should be limited to just Arms of Canada, it is absolutely needed on Arms of Canada as well as the main infobox of Canada, so it's not going anywhere on those two pages any time soon. However, if non-free rationales can be provided for other usages there is no reason to exclude it. We have so many non-free images on Wikipedia, and they are used anywhere a relevant rationale permits, they are not strictly regulated to a single page and there's no reason to do it to this one. This file's use can be limited, as it already is, but there will be other needs outside of just Canada and Arms of Canada. Fry1989 eh? 08:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why it is impossible to create a free alternative? My understanding is that the illustrator of this image, Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, produced it in accordance with the Royal Proclamation of 1921 (and subsequent documented modifications). Were specifications made available to Bursey-Sabourin which are not available to the community of free content creators? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We cant make one as all derivative work is copyrighted as per The Trade Marks Act. Someone can make one up that looks nothing like the original one but that would be original research something we frown upon here on Wikipedia. We do not go out of our way to mislead our readers with original research content or symbols like a coat of arms. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning of the arms.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, did you actually read the Trade-marks Act which you referenced? It says absolutely nothing about copyright. Even then I don't see anything in it which applies to the creation of a freely licensed artistic representation of the Arms. The Act contains various prohibitions on the commercial use of certain symbols (including the Arms) which restrict the CC/GFDL license terms in Canadian jurisdiction. They basically say that these symbols cannot be used for the purposes of passing off. However, this is by no means unusual; US copyright law has similar restrictions; in neither case do the restrictions preclude free licensing. (If you seriously think they do, then you had better nominate File:Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg for deletion post haste, as it's one of the symbols protected by the Act.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't create one, not because it's impossible, but because we have nobody who is capable who is also willing. I certainly don't have the skills, do you? Very few Wikimedia users actually do, I'd say only a handful, and they have probably all seen requests for this at one point. Sodacan has certainly seen the most, and he doesn't feel safe making one and therefore refuses. A few others I know who are up to snuff are interested in their own things and not requests. There is no point in speculating that "it can be done, so lets nuke this", we have to deal with what is before us and right now we do not have any alternative. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree we cant make one that is even close to how the real one looks as it would be copyrighted like this one - all derivative work that is even close to the original is copyrighted in the USA - thus leads us down a path of OR.
  • US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works = A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
  • 17 U.S.C. § 106 = the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
-- Moxy (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#1 does not say that it's permissible to use a non-free image if you can't create a free one because you lack the skills. It says that it's permissible to use a non-free image if no free image can be created, full stop. Lack of artistic talent doesn't exempt you (or our community as a whole) from the conditions of fair use. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your edit summary "You can't invoke fair use simply because of your own lack of artistic talent", apparently everyone else disagrees. You can not force us to delete this image on the basis that an alternative may exist some day, it has to exist now. There isn't an alternative now and unless you are wiling to provide one, or get someone else to for you, then your suggesting we delete this because an alternative may exist somewhere someday is all sound and fury signifying nothing. Fry1989 eh? 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can force removal of this image on the sole basis that an alternative may exist some day rather than now. That is precisely what WP:NFCC#1 says: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created…" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure how you can argue that "everyone else disagrees" with this, since it's an official policy here. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone else does disagree, because everyone else is strongly opposing this deletion. I'm not sure how you could think I meant anything else than exactly that. You're still wasting everyone's time at this point, either there's an alternative, or there isn't. Right now there isn't. I'm not in a position to provide one, you're not in the position to provide one, you don't have any friends in a position to provide one, and those of us who have desperately tried to get someone with the skills to provide one have failed. Until there's an alternative available, all you are proposing is depriving this project of an illustration that is desperately needed and 100% in scope, nothing more. Fry1989 eh? 07:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a misunderstanding by our colleague of just what exactly "could be created" implies. If you believe that human ability and knowledge is ever expanding, then anything is possible. We may some day be able of interstellar travel like in science fiction, or other things we can't even imagine right now. Yes, anything is possible, some new user could come here and create one out of their own volition, or something else completely different. But based on that interpretation, almost everything under NFCC rules would be deleted. The important question is whether or not we have a reasonable expectation that an alternative could be created either now or in the near future. I believe that is the true spirit of the statement and if it is in fact the question, then the answer quite firmly is "no". All evidence is pointing to us having no reasonable expectation of any alternative becoming available now, in the near future, or even until after Crown Copyright expires on the 1994 coat of arms, which wont be for another 31 years. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSE As both Stefan2 and Psychonaut have completely walked away from this discussion, and they are the only two supporters of deleting the image, I believe it is time this is closed for good. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we haven't posted in a few days doesn't mean we've abandoned our stance. We've made our policy-based arguments and we expect the closer to take them into account, along with any other policy-based arguments for or against which have been presented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I said or implied. I expect the closer to take into account that thw two of you are the only supporters for deletion, and that you are supporting deleting the file with no existing alternative or any sign of one coming in the near future, therefore leaving the page absulutely blank, depriving it of something that is 100% in scope and needed.. Fry1989 eh? 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry to come late to the party, but as I've happened upon it I'll add my voice. As Fry1989 and others have pointed out, the commons version is totally unacceptable for WP as it is not an accurate depiction of the blazon; anyone with a basic knowledge of heraldry should understand this fact. There is no free equivalent; this is an official symbol of Canada and to use anything other than the official version would be a misrepresentation. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the closing admin:

There have been many strong opinions expressed in this ffd discussion of a non-free image. It behooves the closing administrator to examine each argument carefully and apply our non-free content policy based on the facts, rather than taking a mere headcount. The basic facts are simple enough to understand: (1) The blazon of the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada is a text description in the public domain. (2) Someone can create an artistic rendition of the coat of arms of Canada and release it under a free license, and that image would depict the coat of arms of Canada. (3) Such a rendition would not, however, be the official artistic rendition of the arms of Canada, which is a copyrighted image. The relevant question is, for a given article, would any accurate rendition of the coat of arms suffice in the article as it stands? Or is the copyrighted official rendition needed to fully understand the topic of the article?

In Arms of Canada, the topic of the article cannot be fully understood without seeing the official rendition and comparing it to other (previous) renditions. Elements of the official rendition are relevant and described in text. However, in National symbols of Canada, Canada, Canadian heraldry, Monarchy of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Coats of arms of Elizabeth II, Prime Minister of Canada, and Elizabeth II (all articles the image has been used in and/or has a rationale written for), nothing in the article describes anything present in the official rendition but absent in the blazon. The coat of arms is merely named and shown, but is not discussed in any meaningful way; any rendition would suffice in these articles as they are currently written. – Quadell (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Yellow Card.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep and crop to conform with WP:NFCC#3b. First off, the image is clearly copyrightable and the copyright is held by the UK crown. Secondly, it seems the content of the article has changed substantially since most people gave their opinions here, so it's difficult to wage consensus. As there has been almost no discussion in almost a month, I'm going to go ahead and close it. If people anyone still believes it fails the fair use criteria, feel free to renominate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review at any time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Yellow Crad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SonofSetanta ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not needed for understanding the article. Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: the file is needed for better understanding of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fail NFC#8. The wording of this document is particularly important to a reader and its removal from the article would necessitate the inclusion of a large body of text to explain its significance. In this case removal of the image would be highly detrimental to the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was using an example, but the principle still applies. PD-Text is for small amounts of text (IE logos). The large amount of text here is copyrightable. Sort pieces of text cannot be copyrighted (logos, slogans ect. ) but are trademarked instead. This falls well into the bounds of copyright. Werieth (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The file was moved from File:The Yellow Crad.jpg to File:The Yellow Card.jpg by King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) at 16:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost certainly under Crown Copyright. I'm not seeing a legitimate application of fair use at the moment—the article doesn't contain any significant amount of commentary on this image. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article contains as much information as is necessary to draw the reader's attention to the image. Given that the image is all text it would be silly to include it all in the article. The information contained in the card is very relevant however and is detailed in its instruction. I suggest the text licence be kept and the "deletion tag be removed". SonofSetanta (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article were to include a bit more commentary specifically on the card or the instructions it contains (rather than merely identifying it) then a case could be made to keep the image, and I will gladly strike my !vote. This is a very interesting historical document and I would like to see it kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can certainly oblige. There is a lot more which can be said of the card. I kept the dialogue short believing the image would do most of the talking. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you expected that the card image itself would be able to explain its reason for being there and have no sources or the like to explain the significance to the reader, then it likely fails NFCC#8. Yes, it's a good historical document but it's not WP's place to keep them. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are plenty of sources to provide information regarding the Yellow Card. It is of significant relevance to the UDR article. The problem I see is that: by providing more information about it, one is taking up so much text space on an already overcrowded article. The recent A Class review suggests "less detail" rather than more. May I draw your attention this this File:Operation Provide Relief.Rules of Engagement.jpg another "rules of engagement" card - this time from the US. It is used in two articles: Rules of engagement and Operation Provide Relief. In the second article it is used in much the same way as I am using it in the UDR article, to show what the rules were for killing people. Apart from the fact that one card has British copyright and the other U.S. what sets them apart in your opinion? why should a British rules of engagement card not be shown? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is no copyright on works of the US government, so there are no special considerations for using them in articles here. British government documents, on the other hand, do carry copyright, and so can be used here only under the fair use exemptions to copyright law and Wikipedia's policies concerning the use of non-free media. These restrictions require, among other things, that this yellow card be accompanied by (and the primary subject of) a significant amount of commentary, and that its presence significantly increase the reader's understanding of that commentary. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The A Class review recommended that the "information cards" section be whittled down as the reviewer felt that mention of all the cards was too detailed. As a result all cards have now been removed except the Yellow Card and the section has been renamed Ulster_Defence_Regiment#The_Yellow_Card which means that the card itself is the subject of the entire section. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, but this is largely irrelevant. I could add a section named "The Lion King" to the article The Walt Disney Company, but that doesn't give me the legal right to post the entirety of the film there. Fair use here is established by commentary, not by topicality. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to consider the importance of the card itself with regards to the history of the UDR, The British Army in Northern Ireland and Operation Banner. It was mandatory for each soldier to carry this card and it was unusual for this mandate to be applied. The card was debated in parliament and its use was the subject of court cases and investigations by human rights groups. Of all the images contained in the article this one is probably the most important. To you perhaps it's just an information card but to readers wishing to obtain factual information about this regiment the card assumes a significance proportionally extreme to its actual size. The information contained within was used to shoot people. It's vital that a reader is aware of the procedures to be carried out before a soldier pulled the trigger and the judgements required before he did so - all contained in the text of the card. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PD-text is not a valid license here. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be the appropriate licence in your opinion? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the absence of any statement from the Crown, the only possible licence here is "All rights reserved". —Psychonaut (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I'll have a shot at that. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I've read so far an "all rights reserved" licence makes the file unusable on Wikipedia. would I not be better returning to Crown Copyright? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are confusing three different things: the copyright status of a work (i.e., whether it is under copyright versus in the public domain), the holder of the copyright (i.e., who controls the use of the work), and the copyright licence (i.e., what rights to use the work the copyright holder has granted to third parties). To say that a work is under "Crown copyright" simply means that the work is under copyright, and that the holder of that copyright is the British government. The British government normally does not grant third parties the right to use works under Crown copyright. When a copyright holder does not grant such rights, this is referred to as "all rights reserved". This is almost certainly the case with the image we are discussing. We have no power to override these terms; only the copyright holder can do so. Since this image is under Crown copyright, and because the Crown has reserved all rights, then we cannot use this image on Wikipedia, except under the provisions of fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll have another go at it then. BTW I am in touch with the National Archive and am hoping for a straight answer very soon. If all else fails I'll make an application for permission to use the file here.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives appear to be suggesting that the copyright in this instance belongs to the person who took the picture - me, in other words. I am awaiting confirmation. If this is true however that will make this a free file and this discussion is dead. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Licence. It is confirmed that this article should be licenced as Crown Copyright. I have done so. It is my contention that the image should be kept in the article to fully explain to readers the importance of the use of this document by the Ulster Defence Regiment during Operation Banner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this non-free image is not needed to fully understand the article. In fact, it doesn't aid in understanding the article at all, appearing as little more than a yellow smudge at the resolution used in the article. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. A readable version is being used. The alternative to using the card is to type all the text into the article which is not a good idea. I stress again that the use of the image in this case is vitally important to the readers understanding of the use of this card. If it was important enough to be raised in the High Court and in parliament then it's important enough for the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Break

We're not getting any movement here at all and I don't want to lose the moral high ground on the discussion just because no-one has anything else to say. I wish to restate my case: that this image is of high importance on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. That it's inclusion as a non free file is justified by the high interest in the document itself and its significance both to the regiment and to the British Army generally throughout the period of the modern troubles in Northern Ireland. I've deleted the Blue Card as it's of much lesser significance but this one I want to keep. Can we have a decision please? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Blue Card.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Blue Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SonofSetanta ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not needed for understanding the article. Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: the file is needed for better understanding of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fail NFC#8. The wording of this document is particularly important to a reader and its removal from the article would necessitate the inclusion of a large body of text to explain its significance. In this case removal of the image would be highly detrimental to the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I have relicenced the file as you suggested. I hope this is found acceptable to everyone here? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the large amount of text PD-text wouldnt apply. You cannot scan a book in as a bunch of images and bypass copyright issues. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using an example, but the principle still applies. PD-Text is for small amounts of text (IE logos). The large amount of text here is copyrightable. Sort pieces of text cannot be copyrighted (logos, slogans ect. ) but are trademarked instead. This falls well into the bounds of copyright. Werieth (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jaden Jeremy Shada.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaden Jeremy Shada.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reanima2 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Reanima2 19:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Glenane.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glenane.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Claimed to be an AP photo. If this is true, then the image violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current file is actually a different photo than the prior one, uploaded by me, that was in fact an AP owned image. The status and the author of the current pic, uploaded by The Thunderer, is uncertain.--Darius (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that the use of the image in the article about the attack is acceptable fair use, but not in the article about the group that carried out the attack (as its not even the most notable of their actions). Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the original pic (now deleted) was owned by AP. The current image has nothing to do with the prior one, which was uploaded by User:The Thunderer.--Darius (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - it is a new image. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. That was confusing. An earlier image was (c) the AP, and was deleted from the history. This new version has no source listed. – Quadell (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_19