Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 23

< Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 24 December 2024 (ask). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:51, 24 December 2024 by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) (ask)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < December 22 December 24 >

December 23

File:Narmer palette 83d40m hathor atop columns below belt of king.png

The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is File:Narmer palette 83d40m hathor atop columns below belt of king.png diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.

Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.

The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.

Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.

Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Uofs new08.png

No need to use at Education in Saskatchewan, a link to University of Saskatchewan will be enough. --Min☠︎rax 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove from Education in Saskatchewan as it is not the logo of that article (as the article is not for an organisation) and so the "purpose of use" on the non-free template is incorrect and invalid. Keep on University of Saskatchewan, where it is a valid fair use. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to include this in the nom but this file is also not needed at University of Saskatchewan as File:University of Saskatchewan logo.svg exists. --Min☠︎rax 14:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I support Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:British Airways i360 Logo.jpg

Former logo, which doesn't significantly enhance the article, especially at the newer logo File:Brighton i360 Logo.png is more generic and so more useful. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Katy Perry - 1432.jpg

The album cover is a for an alternative version of the album, released months after the original. It is not substantially different and has not been subject to critical commentary therefore it fails WP:NFCC, the omission of the cover does not harm the topic. The cover is also of too high quality for a non-free image. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. —IB 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Question if facing the vortex at a different angle and having KP emerge from it along with showing a new butterfly doesn't qualify as "substantially different" to the standard edition's cover, then what would? I was sure that counted for something. Image resolution could potentially be reduced. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)