This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are 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 no objections to deletion or removal have been 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.

Examples of what files you may request for 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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this page. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2018 October 22}} 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. Also, add {{ffd|log=2018 October 22}} 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:fdw|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:fdw-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=2018 October 22}} 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 1920, 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}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality - The image 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 file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

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.

Contents

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:

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

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations

October 16

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.jpg

File:The Secret World of Jeffree Star Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coasterdude1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An unofficial, fan-made poster for the documentary which is not appropriate for the usage. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catsquisher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

US patent is from 1999; the license directly states all patents must be published before 3-1-1989 Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Magog. Patent drawings are generally in the public domain. I believe that the license template used for this and other patent images you have cited has been incorrectly modified since the time that the images were originally posted. There is no time restriction on whether patent drawings are copyrighted. I am awaiting a response from David Condrey regarding his claim that patents published after 1 March 1989 are "most likely copyrighted". I will subsequently correct the license template unless someone can substantiate the claim. —Catsquisher (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Jessica simpson and ken paves.png

File:Jessica simpson and ken paves.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esprit15d (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free media is not permitted for living public persons. GMGtalk 13:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Richmond Hill HS COA.jpg

File:Richmond Hill HS COA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whiskymack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a school coat of arms so the copyright would reside with the school or board of education, so the public domain licensing is not likely to be true. This can be converted to non-free use but it's not clear if this is a proper image given the statement it was redrawn. It would be best to upload an image from an official source if this is to be used as a means of visual identification. Whpq (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, looks to be accurate per the sources. I have added a source, re-licensed to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Note: I couldn't figure out why (or how) it was being used on Portal:Richmond Hill, Ontario. Hopefully a bot will swing by and remove it for being non-free. Salavat (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Ayeyarwadyriver.jpg

File:Ayeyarwadyriver.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hintha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Low quality - The image is of a low resolution Hintha(t) 17:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rakhinecivilisationperiods.png

File:Rakhinecivilisationperiods.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hintha (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Hintha(t) 17:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17

File:Larisa Dolina - We are from Jazz.jpg

File:Larisa Dolina - We are from Jazz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Contested PROD. Non-free image being used in Blackface article with no significant sourced commentary about the image. That an actress used blackface in a Russian film is adequately conveyed with the existing text. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For your convenience let me copy from the description: The significance of this - or similar - image stems from the reasons and fashion blackface was used in Soviet Union's film and theater productions. Unlike traditional for the U.S. minstrel-like makeup the primary reason for using blackface in the Soviet Union was the lack of black actors and lack of either funding, possibility or desire to cast foreign native black actors. The Soviet Union as well as Russia now is a multi-ethnic multi-cultural country, but most of its inhabitants stem from Caucasian or Asian roots. The image shows how blackface makeup was applied in Soviet productions, which cannot be conveyed by words only. Mikus (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. @Mikus: in order to pass, the relevant discussion (similar to what's in the description) should be found in the article. In order to be in the article, it should be cited to reliable sources. And for what it's worth, everything currently in the description can be understood by text alone. I don't need to see an image to understand the statement "the primary reason for using blackface in the Soviet Union was the lack of black actors" or similar. Neither the description nor the article describe how blackface makeup was applied, just why. The "how" of it could perhaps need an image, if the answer is something other than the obvious: you put black paint on the face. An image could perhaps be justified if the text claimed, cited to a reliable source, that the results of turning white actors into black characters were unconvincing. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment @Finnusertop:It is not about putting a black paint of the face, it is about the goal. Blackface in the U.S. with its exaggerated facial features, with thick white or pink lips was meant to paint (pardon the pun) black people as unqualified, with low IQ, good only for singing, dancing and menial work. The Soviet goal was more noble, but the portrayal often was just as paternalistic as in the U.S. The image that I attached is from a late-Soviet production that tried to depict a black person in neutral fashion, just because a particular production could not hire an actual black person. For this reason, the image is important. I expanded the entry with the relevant discussion, thanks for the tip. Please, take another look. Mikus (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for explaining further, Mikus. I can see the case for having an image to accompany sourced text that says something to the effect of "in other cultures it can be used simply to depict a black person, ideally in neutral fashion, just because a particular production could not hire an actual black person for some reason" because, as you say, a neutral representation of a black person is not what blackface ordinarily means. It's something other than what comes to mind when one thinks of "blackface" and is hard to imagine without an image. But right now, the article only contains vague statements about "politics of representation" that don't tie in with this image.
There is, however one problem that I forgot to mention. In the event that we can agree that it needs an image, you need to make the case why this image, which is non-free is specifically needed. Even in the much narrower case of the Soviet Union, some films might have lapsed into the public domain. It's your responsibility to argue why a free image cannot be found or created. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Kartika logo.jpg

File:Kartika logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OK8446 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Kabhi To Milenge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OK8446 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Dance Deewane Title-card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OK8446 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

originally nominated for speedy deletion by 119.160.118.153 under G5 with the reason: "created by a banned or blocked user - Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw" FASTILY 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Chc.jpg

File:Chc.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darkein (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 18:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:St thomas.jpg

File:St thomas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arunvroy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

2D work, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 18:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete a painting with dubious questionable licensing. --DBigXray 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:St thomas 1.jpg

File:St thomas 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kurian277 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, low res, looks like a promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18

File:Ktvt1995logoandid.png

File:Ktvt1995logoandid.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shaggylawn65 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Decorative use of a non-free screenshot itn KTVT#As a CBS station. Although there is some discussion related to the station's switch to CBS, there is no sourced critical commentary specifically related to this particular screenshot; so, the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really being provided. The file's caption does discuss some error in the way the screenshot shows the station's city of license, but no reliable source is cited in support and there doesn't seem to be any corresponding article content supported by a reliable source; so, basically the caption cannot be verified even though it might be true and would be subject to removal as WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

I have updated the article with references from the FCC and Cornell's law school regarding a station's city of license requirement. I don't usually cite law listings, so I wasn't sure exactly how correctly to post that. I didn't think to include this previously when posting the station ID screenshot. The screenshot has been placed at the point of the new references. Hopefully this will in some way help clarify what was meant originally when I added the screenshot. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Everything that's said about the FCC issue with the logo can be understood by text alone because it's about text that appears on the logo: "The logo included the CBS eyemark logo, but the station ID showed the city portion as 'Dallas/Ft. Worth'." – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Order of the Arrow sashes.png

File:Order of the Arrow sashes.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gadget850 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
1950 OA Handbook cover bearing this same sash. This handbook is public domain because the copyright was not renewed.

This is a photo of sashes for the Order of the Arrow being used under a claim of fair use. The claim is that the sashes themselves are copyrighted and so it is not possible to have a free image of them. We had a lengthy NFCR a few years ago that was largely sidetracked by the (incorrect) claim that the BSA charter confers some sort of perpetual copyright on Boy Scout symbols. (This, of course, cannot be correct since it would be unconstitutional.) A 1950 Order of the Arrow handbook - available at [1] on the right - depicts the Ordeal sash basically exactly as it is. (I found another site that has a scan of much of the 1950 handbook (albeit, oddly, with a different cover) and, though it DOES have a copyright notice, conducted a search and it was not renewed.) Some argued in the NFCR whether giving a sash out to members constituted "publication", well, registering a copyright most certainly counts as publication and since they failed to renew it, the 1950 Order of the Arrow handbook (which depicts exactly this sash) is public domain. So we can take our own photo of these public domain sashes (or crop a flickr photo). (Personally, I think that the copyright was lost the first time a sash was handed out to a Boy Scout without a copyright notice. But it certainly was when they failed to renew the copyright on a published work.) B (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep-geometric shapes that don't meet threshold of originality, and already reduced so as to conform to Wikipedia standards.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo: I'm not sure you understand the reason for this nomination. The point is that the sashes themselves are public domain and we should be able to photograph and upload a full-resolution version of them. --B (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PD. It's the same work as on the cover of the PD book. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Thomas Anthony Dooley III, MD.jpg

File:Thomas Anthony Dooley III, MD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ducksonthepond (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

old image of notable individual. Appears to be scanned. Dubious self-work claim FASTILY 23:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - I looked closely at the image and I think it's just compression artifacts, not newsprint or something. The uploader is an SPA whose only edits pertain to Dooley so I think it's a plausible that this is a family photo that the uploader legitimately owns the copyright to. --B (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 06:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Square Cafe Bargoed- Circa 1935.jpg

File:The Square Cafe Bargoed- Circa 1935.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

It is my photo. I don't want this used anymore. Please remove it GugnePorcu (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Huak.jpg

File:Huak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonyphillips (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

photo of a living person. Saqib (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • There are loads of photos of living people on Wikipedia, why should this one be deleted? IffyChat -- 11:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
permission is missing as well. Likely copyvio. --Saqib (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The file suggests that the photo was taken by the author in 2005, uploaded in 2008, and licensed under GFDL 1.2 and CC BY-SA 3.0. Do you have any evidence that this is untrue? IffyChat -- 14:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg

File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrmarkus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg eligible for fair use? There are 3 photos of the Blue Thunder cockpit mockup in the Blue Thunder (helicopter) article already, though not in the condition seen in the film. The aft portion of the aircraft is mostly identical to a stock Aérospatiale Gazelle, a photo of which could easily be added to the article. BilCat (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg

File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this image eligible for fair-use? The purpose is given as "illustrate this in development aircraft general configuration", which File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.png now shows. Is showing a cutaway cabin layout sufficient to permit fair use? Note that most aircraft articles do not have photos of the aircraft's cabin, when applicable, though there are probably many non-free cabin images and cutways. BilCat (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I updated the purpose by "interior configuration". While the model photo shows the exterior config, the cabin layout is interesting for this one, as it was designed around the 19 seats/3 LD3 payload (a composite like this picture would be even better) and no free picture is available for now. It is a promotional picture, publicised by Textron to advertise its model, their interest is its diffusion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Little Mix - LM5 Album Deluxe.jpg

File:Little Mix - LM5 Album Deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BautyButera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. livelikemusic talk! 23:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19

File:Dcsoundtrack.jpg

File:Dcsoundtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scottandrewhutchins (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in The Draughtsman's Contract#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

This was originally prodded for deletion, but de-prodded for the reason shown here. Even if this is not technically a movie soundtrack album so to speak, it is still non-free cover art and still fails NFCC#8 with respect to the way it's currently being used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough the misreading of the de-prod reason. -- 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)]

  • Because the music has been recorded numerous times, showing the soundtrack cover is necessary for identification purposes and not merely "decorative." I did NOT say that it was not a soundtrack album. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • My mistake for misinterpretting the reason you gave for deprodding the file. Even so, the fact that there might be other "albums of music from The Draughtman's Contract that are not film's soundtrack per se" still is not a justification for the non-free use of this cover per WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-3. There's already a link to The Composer's Cut Series Vol. I: The Draughtsman's Contract in the film's article where the reader can find out about that album; so, it's not clear how the reader's understanding of that fact the album was re-recorded is significantly improved by seeing this particular album cover. If you feel the soundtrack album is sufficiently Wikipedia notable per WP:NALBUM for a stand-alone article to be written about it, then the cover art could be used for primary indentification purposes in that article perhaps; otherwise, there's really no need for this particular cover art to be used in film article where there's no critical commentary of it of any kind. Different albums tend to have different covers, and unless there's some sourced commentary particularly related to the choice of cover art Nyman made for the original soundtrack album and the re-recording of it, there's no real reason to see one to understand that the other exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. A textbook example of WP:FILMMUSIC: "The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:RussBerrieGregory.jpg

File:RussBerrieGregory.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juntung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploaders photo, but what's shown is a product. FFD referral for an assessment per Commons:COM:TOYS. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @ShakespeareFan00: I'm not so sure about this one ... is it sufficiently different from public domain teddy bears as to have a valid copyright? Teddy Bears have been around for at least 100 years and I don't see anything especially creative about this one. --B (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not have a view myself as Wikipedia edits under my account were done by my father in his spare time and he has long passed away. The picture was taken by him and I am happy to release the picture itself to public domain, if that helps. --JuntungWu (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as DW. To B: there is obviously creativity involved in creating teddy bears. There is a lot of artistic choice that shows in the product. If you tell a dozen people to make a teddy bear, chances are that all will be different. "Teddy bear" is a category of toys, not a work from 100 years ago. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Finnusertop: yes, of course teddy bears are a category, not a single creative work. That's not the point. The point is, there are no doubt tons of different teddy bear products that are clearly in the public domain because they are pre-1923 or were made prior to 1976 without a copyright notice. I'm going to pull a number out of my rear end and say that there were 10000 different Teddy Bears produced prior to 1976 that are in the public domain. The question is, is this particular teddy bear sufficiently different from those 10000 teddy bears so as to demonstrate a spark of creativity? It honestly looks pretty boilerplate. Do a Google image search for 1920 teddy bear plush and you'll find plenty of them that look very similar. Does this bear demonstrate a spark of creativity so as to distinguish itself? --B (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:ThomasKennedy.jpg

File:ThomasKennedy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arctic.gnome (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Second opinion on the status wanted... If this PD as an official portrait? If so can someone update the information block ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as PD in Canada. From what I understand, Crown copyright#Canada: Crown copyright covers all works that are "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department." applies to this. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Egyptian MIG 21s during Yom Kippur War.jpg

File:Egyptian MIG 21s during Yom Kippur War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blacktiger87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

What's the US status? My view is that URAA doesn't apply as 1996(-15 years for simple photos) is 1981 after this image was taken. The FFD refferal is for a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it the way it is: PD in Egypt and possibly non-free in US. I am not confident in guessing what the "creative work" caveat means. If you are, I'm happy to hear about your findings, ShakespeareFan00. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20

File:Eminem in 2017.png

File:Eminem in 2017.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WikiiFacts (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is from the November 2017 MTV EMA Awards, a screen capture taken from the copyrighted MTV video broadcast.

[www.mtv.com]

[hiphop24x7.com]

The user has already been warned about uploading an image (File:Eminem 2018.jpg) that was a blatant copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • For some reason the uploader blanked the file's page with this edit which means that the file has no source source and no license; so, I've tagged it for speedy deletion with {{nsdnld}} per WP:F4. Mayeb the uploader thought that blanking the page would delete the file, but they probably should request that using {{db-author}} if that's what they want to do.
    @Binksternet: If you come across a file which you're positive is a copyright violation and you can show that it is, just tag it for speedy deletion per WP:F9. At the same time, it you feel that the uploader's claim of copyright ownership, you can tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F10. There's really no need to start a discussion about such files at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Mull0329

Mull0329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
File:Umdlib2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Swensonlobby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Umdlib.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Maloskystadium.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Kirbyplaza-night.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:LendleyBlack wiki2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:LendleyBlack wiki1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Conflicting claims of authorship - this user credits the University of Minnesota-Duluth but also uses the {{self}} template. --B (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I would guess that Mull0329 (talk · contribs) may have been an employee of the University of Minnesota Duluth, which may be why they used the {{self}} template and then also cited the source as being the institution. What is done in that instance? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information is not conflicting per se, as Randomeditor1000 points out. I checked a few and couldn't find a previous publication online. Going by that, they are likely not copyvios. Please re-nominate if you can find these published somewhere prior to us. Also, should be moved to Commons. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera screenshots

File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guest9999 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Night at the Opera balcony.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:ANATOcontract.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Night at the Opera end.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Before My Ken (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshots being used in A Night at the Opera (film). None of the screenshots themselves are really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the article, so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really provided. The screenshots appears to be primarily to illustrate certain plot points or scenes which seems more WP:DECORATIVE than not, and is not something really encouraged for articles about movies per WP:FILMNFI. I could see using these if there were used to show some particular technical aspect of the filming process, etc., but only File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg seems to try to serve that role; that particular use, however, simply seems to be to visually support a plot description rather than technical commentary on how that particular scene was shot. If further clarification could be provided as to why these particular screenshots need to be seen by the reader other than to try and argue WP:SCENE, then perhaps such content could be added to the article and the respective rationales revised accordingly; otherwise, I cannot see how these met WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER since a textual description of the respetive scenes seems sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The images visually identify cast members and situations descrived in the plot summary, so they are illustrative and not decorative. They are also quite obviously publicity set-ups, and not stills from the film. Publicity shots were regularly taken during the filming of movies at this time, and these shots were widely distributed to newspapers and magazine for publicity purposes. Each image has a proper rationale for its use in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I referred to them as screenshots because that’s how they are licensed. Why did you license the ones you uploaded as {{Non-free film screenshot}} if you feel/felt they’re quite obviously publicity set-ups? The source you’ve cited for File:ANATOcontract.jpg does say it’s a screen capture. It shows the same image with some dialogue text at the bottom which has been cropped out of the upload. The sources for the other files seem to be dead/overwritten, so can’t say anything either way about those two. I they are PR photos, then perhaps the licensing should be changed to {{Non-free promotional}} instead.
    Regardless, being widely distributed for publicity reasons or simply used to “show” the cast members is not really a sufficient justification for non-free use in my opinion, unless there was something particular about the way they looked in the film (e.g., costuming, make-up, etc.) that might have been discussed in reliable sources at the time or subsequently thereafter. If you want to just show what they looked like then perhaps there are some free equivalent images which can be used instead.
    Now, since you’re claiming that the three you’ve uploaded are PR photos, then perhaps they were never released with a copyright notice or their copyright was never renewed. So, maybe it’s possible for them to be converted to {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Can you provide anymore information about your uploads which shows they are indeed PR photos? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no specific information about the images, but after 44 years in show business, I know the difference between the look of a frame from a film (motion blur, somewhat less than perfect positioning of the people in the shot) and a publicity set-up, where everything is set and the lighting adjusted. It's clear to me -- and, I would think, anyone with experience with these matters -- that these are publicity shots.
    As for the licensing, these were uploaded quite a while ago -- did we even have the "non-free promotional" license then? I'm not sure we did. If not, then I went with what was the closest applicable license, or at least the closest that I was aware of at the time.
    I also would like to ask: how does it improve the encyclopedia to remove these photos? Isn't that what we're here for, not to blindly follow rules, but to improve the encyclopedia? Or, to put it another way, how does it harm the encyclopedia to have these shots in the article, especially if they're promotional;? What is the animus here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • With the exception of File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, these clearly fail NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, depending on the perspective. Either what is being depicted is already covered by text, ie. that this and that actor is featured in the film. Or what is being depicted is not being covered by text at all, ie. that something happens in the scene on the balcony or that there is something of significance beyond dialogue in the contract scene. As for File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, it could potentially pass with sourced critical commentary. As the article says, it's a famous scene so it could be possible to find actual analysis in sources about what happens on the screen or how it was done. "[A] total of 15 people crowd[ed] into Driftwood's tiny cabin" is a complex statement. One can't quite imagine what it looks like without an image. But nothing in the article text necessitates seeing what it actually looks like.
As for Beyond My Ken inquiry about bettering or harming the encyclopedia, the criteria laid out in NFCC#8 is that the absence of these images should make it extremely difficult for the reader to follow the sourced critical arguments made in the text. That is presently not the case. It is obvious how keeping images that fail the non-free criteria harms the encyclopedia. We are only allowed non-free content that meets the stringent criteria in order to keep such content minimal. That follows from the WMF resolution wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Keeping sloppy non-free content is against everything that we stand for.
As such, remove all. File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg can be revisited when the article has sourced critical commentary of what you should be looking at in that particular scene. The question of whether these are screenshots or promotional photos is irrelevant because no one is saying that they would violate WP:NFCC#3b (Screenshots, in theory, are smaller portions of a larger work. Photos are entire works, but the resolution is not excessive) or WP:NFCC#2 (No one is going to not buy the film because they've seen four screenshots. In the case of promotional photos, yes, the copyright holder might actually want to disseminate them widely, but that does not excuse them from meeting the rest of the criteria). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Photo of Kruzhka sign.jpg

File:Photo of Kruzhka sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Price (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:FOP#Russia Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rhode Island DOT Seal.png

File:Rhode Island DOT Seal.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tms9753 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this the work of the government of Rhode Island, or did the uploader create it? Unclear source. See c:COM:SEAL. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Steve altes.jpg

File:Steve altes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John turner 1962 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve altes.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 21

October 20

File:Seal of California, 1954, Dept of Rehabilitation, Sacramento, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1954, Dept of Rehabilitation, Sacramento, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1950, O.C. Malmquist Panels, California State Capitol, Sacramento.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1950, O.C. Malmquist Panels, California State Capitol, Sacramento.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Employment Development Department, 1955, Sacramento.jpg

File:Seal of California, Employment Development Department, 1955, Sacramento.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, ca. 1960, 1304 O Street, Sacramento, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, ca. 1960, 1304 O Street, Sacramento, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1890, Marshall Monument, Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Coloma, CA.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1890, Marshall Monument, Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Coloma, CA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1898, San Francisco Ferry Building.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1898, San Francisco Ferry Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1986, Jacque Giuffre and Rosa Estebanez, CPUC Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1986, Jacque Giuffre and Rosa Estebanez, CPUC Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Hearst Building Lobby, 5 Third Street, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, Hearst Building Lobby, 5 Third Street, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1894, F. Happersberger (1859-1932), James Lick Pioneer Monument, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1894, F. Happersberger (1859-1932), James Lick Pioneer Monument, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1998, Elihu Harris State Building, Oakland, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1998, Elihu Harris State Building, Oakland, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1910, San Mateo County History Museum, Redwood City, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1910, San Mateo County History Museum, Redwood City, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1939, Harold F. Wilson, Ronald Reagan State Building, Los Angeles, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1939, Harold F. Wilson, Ronald Reagan State Building, Los Angeles, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Los Angeles County Law Library, Los Angeles, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, Los Angeles County Law Library, Los Angeles, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1932, Martin Syvertsen, Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1932, Martin Syvertsen, Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Early Detection Saves Lives.jpg

File:Early Detection Saves Lives.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ColdCreeper44 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License plate design is NOT own work as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:AdamLambertBegforMercy.jpg

File:AdamLambertBegforMercy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CJJuarez17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Album cover, How does Itunes have the rights to re-license this as claimed? Did the uploader mean to put 'non-free' use? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:South Africa coat of arms.png

File:South Africa coat of arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheTexasNationalist99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deleted twice, soon to be thrice on Commons (c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of South Africa.png) Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rich Greenfield.jpg

File:Rich Greenfield.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noveoko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image for long deleted article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Greenfield. Magog the Ogre (tc) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Tony-kendall.jpg

File:Tony-kendall.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kinboshi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Kendall.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 22

Footer

Today is October 22 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 22 -- (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 "===October 22===" 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.