Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5

Files in Category:Cap logos

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 all, with no prejudice to individual re-nomination. As a rule of thumb, FfDs of this size are generally unworkable, especially when reason(s) for deletion are controversial. -FASTILY 03:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Category talk:Cap logos.Jonteemil (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: WP:NFC#CS states: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. Hence I conclude that these files do not qualify for fair use, they are unfairly used if you will. Since the logos are in the infobox there can be no argument that there is any critical commentary that would make the use fair even if it wasn't used for identification purposes of the article. This should be valid for all files nominated. If one isn't please let me know.Jonteemil (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, this mass deletion nomination is appropriate I think (some people might be a little nervous on that count, but these are all very similar cases.) I think an argument for keeping is that really what we've got at the top of the infoboxes on all these pages is really just a single cohesive image, two aspects of "logo of this entity", regardless of technically being composed of two separate files; neither is really the only logo, since one is the official one and one is the de facto one actually used on the field. On the other hand, we always want to be as conservative as possible. We kinda really sorta shouldn't be showing any logos, but we carve out an exception because, well, for "identification of the entity" but (IMO) also because it makes our articles look nicer (which matters!) and you don't want to be Cotton Mather. But one's enough for prettification, or for "identification of the entity". What is the second logo adding, such that we have to have a second easing of our strictures on these pages? Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the files listed above have been tagged with {{Ffd}} (at least not yet) and none of the uploaders of the files have been notified (at least not yet). These are things that are the responsibility of the nominator and should be done asap. It would also help if the nominator at least provided a brief statement explaining why the files were nominated and what outcome is desired instead of simply just linking to a discussion on some other page. Finally, with so many files nominated at once and pretty much all of them falling under the scope of a single WikiProject, it might also be a good idea (even if only done as a courtesy) for the nominator post at least a {{Please see}} on the WikiProject's talk page to give itself members a heads up about what's being discussed because doing might help mitigate a drama that could be generated from a nomination such as this. With so many similar files being used in the same way because they're being used in the same infobox template, I think it's important to try and get the relevant WikiProject involved in this discussion as much as possible. This doesn't mean that I think the files should be kept simply if the WikiProject wants them kept because WP:NFCC is a community-wide policy that can't be superseded by a local consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. However, it might help a repeat of such image use in the future to determine whether clarification should be added to the template's documentation about non-free content use. The files nominated here seem to only for minor league baseball teams, but there's a similar template used for major league teams and some major league teams also have two logos in their main infoboxes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I kinda assumed Jonteemil would have tagged and notified.. kinda disappointed. I've done the tagging and notifying. See page history, I rolled back the individual nominations on this page. I've also moved this discussion here from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not tagging the individual files. I remember that the bot notified all users and somewhere in my mind I guess I assumed the bot would tag the files as well. But evidently it didn't sorry for that. That was not intentional.Jonteemil (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for tagging the files and notifying the uploaders. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to notify the WikiProject as well just as a courtesy. Now, if Jonteemil could add a brief statement at least clarify why the files were nominated for discussion and what outcome they'd like to see, then that would help clarify things even further.
FWIW, I think this discussion is more complex than simply listing a bunch of files and then claiming they all fail to meet one or more of the WP:NFCCP. Each of these files is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes about minor league baseball teams. The template used for that infobox has been set up to use two files, which is most likely why you find both a non-free cap logo and non-free (mascot) logo being used for primary identification purposes in these articles. Whether two files are needed is certainly something worth discussing, but most likely at least one is OK since a bit of wiggle with respect to WP:NFCC#8 seems to be allowed for logos used for primary identification purposes. The "problem" with this kind of mass nomination (e.g. simply nominating all of the files from the same category) is that it automatically seems to assume that the all the files in that category are the ones that need to be deleted. Sport teams with a cap or helmet as part of their uniform (e.g. baseball, America football) may have various logos that they use for a part of their branding and the logos on their uniforms, etc. and logos on their caps and helmets may be different. Sometimes this difference may be not much and the logos are the same or really close, but that can also sometimes be quite different. A professional baseball team might actually be more identifiable by the logo used on its caps than the logos in uses on its uniforms or other things; so, I think automatically assuming that the cap logo is the one which needs to be deleted is a superficial assessment of the team's branding. Two non-free logos which are pretty much the same aren't needed per WP:NFCC#3a; so, when the cap logo and the other logo are really similar or actually the same (in terms of copyrightable elements), then deleting one or the other does seem appropriate to me at least in terms of NFCC#3a. However, when the two are quite different, then perhaps using them both could be justified.
It would be much easier to assess these files, if they were divided up into more manageable groups to allow a more focused discussion to take place. For example, one group could be files which are identical or really close to the other logo used in the main infobox since these could be discussed in terms of not only WP:NFCC#8, but also WP:NFCC#3a. Then, it might simply come down to determining which of the two files to keep. Another group could be for those files which are very different from other logo being used; these might be require a bit more of through assessment to see whether it's actually necessary to delete both or which to delete if one needs to go. Nominating all the cap logos for deletion without discussing the other non-free logos being used in the main infoboxes is, at least in my opinion, not going to lead to very productive discussion. This FFD is not really only about the 50+ files listed above; it's also essentially about the 50+ other files being used in the main infoboxes of the same articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the logo that wasn't the cap was the primary logo, hence if only one logo is allowed, then the other one should be kept and the cap logo deleted. I think this is a statement with which the majority of users would agree with?Jonteemil (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is more complex than that, and I think this is being born out (at least for the moment) by some of the comments/!votes made below. FWIW, I'm not trying to say that you acted in bad faith or anything like that, and I know you tried to do things better this time around. However, you need to be extra careful with mass nominations of so many files like this because there are so many moving parts to try and keep track of. You should also at least try to provide a brief statement as to why you're nominating a file for discussion and what you think the outcome of the FFD should be. If you just add list of files and a link to some other discussion on some other page and expect other editors to go there and figure things out, you're going to run into problems. If it's too much work to provide such a statement for each individual file, then at least provide one as a group as a whole. You can then add links to other discussions in support if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I have now updated my rationale for deletion. I think the rationale should be valid for all files. All the files are used identically, that's why I didn't make seperate rationales for each file. If one of the files are indeed used differently from the others, please then let me know.Jonteemil (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "problem" with this kind of mass nomination (e.g. simply nominating all of the files from the same category) is that it automatically seems to assume that the all the files in that category are the ones that need to be deleted. This is an incorrect picture of what I have done. I did not find Category:Cap logos and nonchalantly nominated all files in it to FFD. Rather, I found a few articles about baseball teams, that had two non-free logos in its infobox. I figured that this wasn't allowed. At first I didn't know that there were so many, so I nominated one cap logo individually to FFD, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Pats cap.png but when I found more and more similar files, I , personally, added each such file I found to Category:Cap logos. I never meant to create the category, it was just a nifty place to save them for the upcoming FFD when I had found all files. The category was nevertheless created by a user following this.Jonteemil (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Thank you for providing a statement why you nominated these files for discussion and what you think the outcome should be.
Thank you also for clarifying the category specifics. I did post that it "automatically seems to assume" (italics added here for emphasis because basically the title of this thread was the name of the category and then there was a list of a bunch if not all the files in that category. The name "Cap logos" seems as if it could also include possibly MLB and freely-licensed/PD logos as well, but I didn't know it you were just using it as sort of a storage place to hold the file you nominated for deletion. I also did notice that you had individually nominated some additional files for discussion. In addition to one you mentioned, there's also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:SharksCap.PNG and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png. Nobody objected in the "Pats cap" discussion and when that happens the close is generally as the nominator suggests by default. Your nomination, however, just stated "fails WP:NFCC#8 and makes no mention of two logos being used in the infobox or even states where the file was being used of how it fails NFCC#8. It would probably be better and more helpful in the future if you could try and explain why you think the file fails and NFCC#8 or any other of the NFCCP. That way others would at least have an idea as to why the file was nominated and perhaps why it ended up deleted. I do want to point out that the two other FFDs you started aboutcap logos on May 18 were relisted. One of the discussions was closed as "Keep" and one is still ongoing. You made no mention of multiple infobox logos being used or NFCC#8 being violated in either of these two discussions; instead, your nomination of them has to only do with whether the files need to be non-free. These discussion were both re-listed after you started your discussion at Category talk:Cap logos so it seems you were already thinking about NFCC#8 stuff before these two FFDs were closed; yet you made no additional posts in either of the relisted FFDs about your concerns. Did you have NFCC#8 concerns about File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png and File:SharksCap.PNG when you started the FFDs about them on May 18 or on May 28 when the FFDs were relisted? Why didn't you mention these concerns if you did have them? Why didn't you mention the multiple infobox logos in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Pats cap.png if that was a contributing reason for the file not meeting NFCC#8. Why did you feel that File:Pats cap.png was the file that failed NFCC#8 and not File:SomersetPatriots.PNG? I can't see the file that was deleted since I'm not an admin; so, all I have to go on is what's written in the FFD you started. Did you notice that there is some discussion of team branding in Somerset Patriots#Logos and uniforms and in Somerset Patriots#Mascots. It's unsourced for sure (which isn't ideal), but there's something there at least. Why didn't you mention this in you FFD nomination? Mentioning things like this and at east explaining why you think they are insufficient to meet NFCC#8 or mentioning at least why you think one logo meets NFCC#8 while the other doesn't is the kind of information you should (at least in my opinion) provided whenever you nominate a file for discussion (particularly if you want the want to be deleted or removed) because it help others understand your reasoning and gives them something to discuss. If you simply say "fails XXX" or "delete per XXX", then there's not much to discuss and you're kind of expecting others to read your mind. NFCC#8 discussion are in particular often quite contentious and often depend on subjective assessments of file use; NFCC#8 discussions also seem to be the ones that usually end up at WP:DRV. So, it's important that your nomination be something more than WP:ITSOBVIOUS or WP:DECORATIVE types of nomination. I think it's good practice to assume that the other editors who may participate in the discussion (including the file's uploader) are simply not going to see things as you see them; so, you at least need to try and explain why you see them that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so a multiple of questions there. I'll try to answer them. In addition to one you mentioned, there's also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:SharksCap.PNG and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png. Yes, but those FFDs didn't really have to do with deletions, just changing the license from non-free to free. Did you have NFCC#8 concerns about File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png and File:SharksCap.PNG when you started the FFDs about them on May 18 or on May 28 when the FFDs were relisted? Yes, but since I suspected that the files were free I instead filed an FFD to relicense that. To have an FFD rationale that has a bunch of 'ifs', i.e. "Probably free but if they're not than the should be deleted because..." I thought would be messy. Did you notice that there is some discussion of team branding in Somerset Patriots#Logos and uniforms and in Somerset Patriots#Mascots. Probably not. I looked the article for any occurance of the logo twice but since I didn't find it I nominated it to FFD. I don't see its relevance to the fair use. I mean the logo isn't used there anyway. If it were to have been, then I would've understood you. you're kind of expecting others to read your mind. I mean, people are not stupid. I assume they will check the article in which the file is used and make their assessment. With all due respect, I think you overdemand what a nominator should do before they nominate a file for deletion somewhat.Jonteemil (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough and clarified FFD nomination doesn't necessarily need to be messing and requesting one isn't over demanding per se. FFD discussions about files often do discuss multiple aspects about a file. Perhaps this makes the discussion a bit more complex, but it also makes it more thorough. It also might be preferred to discussing a file once at FFD, having the file kept, and then nominating it for discussion at FFD about week later for another issue. What’s going to happen if Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:SharksCap.PNG is closed as "Keep as non-free"? Are you then going to wait a bit of time and then start a new FFD discussion about the file for NFCC#8 reasons?
The way you chose to word your nomination statement could also, at least in opinion, potentially cause confusion. There is a difference between fair use and WP:NFC; in other words, the way the terms are used on Wikipedia isn't exactly interchangeable. These files are most likely not an issue in terms of fair use and would be OK to use as such. What’s being discussed here is whether the file usage complied with relevant Wikipedia policy. It might seem like nitpicking, but I think it's important to remember the difference.
Finally, about "Somerset Patriots" cap logo mentioned above, you post that that you didn't think the section about the team's branding was relevant to the file's non-free use because the file wasn't being specifically used in that section. Is that an accurate summary of what you posted? Did you consider that the file could possibly be moved from the infobox to that section as a possible alternative to deletion? Could the same possiblity exist for any of the 50+ files you've nominated for discussion here? — Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All these files were uploaded by just a few users: Fuzzy510 (7 files), NatureBoyMD (11 files), PennaRican81 (31 files), Tom Danson (7 files) and one file each by Gateman1997 and RandyFitz. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template {{Ffd notice multi}} could be used for notifying the uploaders. It can handle up to 26 files and that would cover everyone expect the editor who uploaded 31; that editor would need to be notified "twice" so to speak or without using a notification template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I just used Twinkle. The uploaders can archive/remove/whatever the notices. Btw, may be helpful. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I believe NFCC#8 and NFCC#3 are both met, as these logos are used for identification purposes, and the cap logo may be a separate and alternate identifier. There may be specific logos where the cap logo is not sufficiently different from the main logo for NFCC#3 to be met, those can be re-nominated. I also only spot-checked three of these, but I don't think this is an infringement of our NFCC policy, and I'm generally pretty strict about NFCC. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: From wp:NFC#CS: To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion.Jonteemil (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. For these images, I think it would only apply when the cap logo is substantially similar or equivalent to the primary logo. I believe looking at the rule contextually does not prohibit more than one item from being used for identification purposes, and I think this is one of the exceptions to the rule, similar to how coins can have photos of both their front and back. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :

Keep:

I think most of these are distinct enough from the standard logo to be fine (like how alternate album covers can sometimes be fine). However, several are essentially just elements of the primary logo just with the rest left off, and those are probably a bit too similar. At least one is almost identical and should certainly be deleted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support this, I'm thankful for Hog Farm for categorising all of these, and I clearly support the interpretation of the guideline. If the interpretation gets adopted - that cap logos are fine as long as they're not near-duplicates or worse, actual duplicates - I'd support keeping the Quad City Bandits since I think it's different enough, and the New Orleans team should probably be procedurally kept and have its own separate discussion (hence the "general" support.) The other option is a complete procedural keep and then re-nom the ones Hog Farm identified, but I'm not sure we need to do that. (Of course the discussion could break another direction.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC is a policy, not a guideline; so, whether the concerns are discussed on a per file basis or in a mass nomination like this, the basics of the discussion aren't going to change. I think trying to hold the discussion on so many files at once does complicate things, but the discussion will (or at least should be), in principle, the same. There are possibly guideline related matters for minor league team articles or infobox use that the WikiProject could possibly try and sort out, but anything related to non-free content use would need to follow Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per WP:CONLEV. If the policy is an issue for the WikiProject, then that can be discussed at WT:NFCC. As for the suggestion of a "procedural keep", I don't think that's applicable in this case. It's true that the nominator made some procedural mistakes by not tagging individual files and (perhaps) not notifying individual uploaders, but those were addressed by another editor. This FFD was originally started on June 4, but was re-started on June 5 by the editor who fixed the procedural errors. That editor properly tagged all of the files and notified all of the uploaders, and then even notified the WikiProject. So, I don't think the are procedural issues at play any longer. There's no limit (technical or otherwise) placed on the number of files that can be FFDed at the same time; maybe there should be, but that is a discussion for WT:FFD. So, it not against procedure to nominate so many files at once. I personally think trying get others to discuss 50+ files at once probably isn't a very good idea, particularly when it involves NFCC#8; however, that's not really a procedural issue. So, I think discussing these files here and now is what we've got to try our best to do. I would suggest that the nominator keep all of this in mind before doing something similar in the future, but that's up to them. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keeps have happened even when procedure has been followed properly in multiple deletion requests, mostly at AfD per WP:TRAINWRECK - haven't necessarily seen one at FfD, but I patrol here less frequently. This isn't yet a trainwreck, but if not enough users discuss Hog Farm's categorisation, we may be able to get a consensus on how to apply the policy in this instance but not necessarily a consensus on what to keep or delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, I support SportingFlyer's reasoning above for keeping all for now then revisiting as needed on a case by case basis. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the ones identified to be kept by User:Hog Farm, based on User:SportingFlyer's rationale that cap logos are alternate identifiers, and this could be an exception to the rule. Waz⁸:T-C-E 00:42, 13 June 2021 (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:Eylcamel.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image no longer exists on Flickr. Lidistat67 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2021 (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:Looney Tunes Cartoons title card.jpeg

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: Resolved, converted to non-free -FASTILY 03:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No way this is PD-logo, can probably be used as fair use. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 13:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right and there's no way this could be {{PD-logo}}. Let's just assume that uploader just made a mistake that has now been corrected by another editor who changed the file's licensing to a non-free one. You can, for future reference, do something similar yourself in the future if you come across another file like this; you can even do it the other way as well (i.e. non-free to PD-logo). Lots of editors uploading files, particularly new editors, make (good-faith) mistakes like this; so, unless you notice a pattern of too many of these kinds of mistakes, it usually OK just to fix them yourself if you think you can. There's nothing with discussing a file like this here or at WP:MCQ of course when you want additional input, but you can also fix them yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dylsss, be aware though if you consider converting a non-free logo to free that the threshold of originality varies from country to country. Most very simple logos from the UK and Australia are not PD-logo. (but could be {{PD-USonly}}) The Looney Tunes Cartoons title card is eligible for copyright everywhere, so that's converted to non-free now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I believe the license you wanted to link to is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: Alexis Jazz is correct. My reply is overly general. For a file to be truly 100% "PD-logo", it would need to be too eligible for copyright protection in not only in the US, but also in its country of origin. Some countries (like the US) have a comparatively high threshold of originality (or TOO) in comparison to other countries. The UK, in particular, has quite a low TOO and most logos for UK companies, etc. are probably going to be considered to be too complex to be fully PD-logo. If you know all this already, then my apologies for this bit of a segue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the licensing has been corrected and a fairuse added. Salavat (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2021 (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:Luv n' Haight sample.ogg

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: Withdrawn -FASTILY 03:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently seems to fail WP:NFCC #8 in both articles it is used in, as the only discussion of the song in either location is in the caption (as of the time I'm writing this). There are other non-free samples in both articles with better contextual significance. Also, based on the length of the song this is taken from, the length of this sample exceeds the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples; it should be several seconds shorter. Hog Farm _Talk 22:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the sample and added text justifying its inclusion in the first article, while removing it from the second article. isento (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning this up, Isento; I think the changes have resolved the NFCC issues. This FFD can be considered to be withdrawn. Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 7 June 2021 (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.

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 5

June 5

Files in Category:Cap logos

File:Eylcamel.jpg

File:Looney Tunes Cartoons title card.jpeg

File:Luv n' Haight sample.ogg