Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFDWP:FFD

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	102	77	179
TfD	0	1	0	55	56
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	3	6	2	38	49
RfD	0	0	0	51	51
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Nominated files are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus or the file may be deleted or removed if the nominator specifically requests it and no objections are raised.

If you want to nominate a file for discussion, follow the instructions below.

How to use this page

Reasons for nominating a file

Shortcut

WP:FFD#REASONSWP:FFD#REASONS

While this list comprises the most common and uncontroversial reasons to discuss a file, any properly explained reason can be used. Examples of files you may request for discussion here include:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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. If you have general questions about a file or its copyright status, start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to nominate here

Shortcut

WP:FFD#NOTWP:FFD#NOT

The majority of deletion and merge proposals concerning pages in the file namespace should be nominated at this venue. However, there are a few exceptions:

In general, if a deletion is uncontroversial, use the Proposed deletion process; if your proposed deletion is later contested, then you can nominate the file here.
For speedy deletion candidates, tag the file under one of the criteria for speedy deletion of files. These include duplicates, thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, and others
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
For files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused, or are non-free without rationale, place one of the following tags on 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.
For redundant or duplicate files, use:
1. {{Db-f1|FILENAME}} (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
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is nominated as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
For files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, use the Commons deletion request system.
For file description pages with no local file, even if they are in the file namespace:
1. For redirects, if none of the criteria for speedy deletion of redirects apply, nominate it at Redirects for discussion.
2. For local description pages with no associated file, speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
3. For local description pages for files hosted on Commons, speedily delete them under criterion F2 using {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. For other local description pages for files hosted on Commons, nominate them at Miscellany for deletion.
For appropriately-licensed files which could be usable elsewhere, copy them to Wikimedia Commons instead. Once copied to the Commons, you can speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
For requesting the undeletion of a file, contact the administrator who deleted the file; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, use Deletion review.

Nominate a file

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an file on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate files!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate files, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.

Shortcut

WP:FFDHOWWP:FFDHOW

Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a file for discussion. Do not include the "File:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related files at once, nominate the first file using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional files into the existing nomination.

You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the file should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. Only registered users can nominate files. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate files. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.

Methods

Twinkle

How to nominate a file at TfD

After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the file you want to nominate

Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!

The easiest way to nominate files for discussion is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:

Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
Go back to the file, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
Write a short nomination statement
If you want to nominate more than one file, enter the additional files into this tool

Manual method

If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate files at FfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.

Manual instructions

Most of these steps are performed automatically when using the § Twinkle method. To do it manually instead, follow these steps:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 August 30}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Edit today's TfD log and nominate 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 nominating additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:Ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader=}}` for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate a nomination of multiple files. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2026 August 30}}` 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:Ffd notice\|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:Ffd notice 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=2026 August 30}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

Discussion

In explaing their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

WP:NFCC1 – Free equivalent is or is not available
WP:NFCC1 – Significance
WP:NFC#UUI – Unacceptable image use

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. 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.

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 1933, not 1927.
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}}.

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDOWP:FFDO

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

August 22

File:Anne Sexton by Elsa Dorfman.jpg

[edit]

I assumed this was a non-free photo and thus removed it from the article for Anne Sexton (as there was another free photo), but there is something weird with the linked Britannica source (live link). Britannica marks this as being licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2. I am willing to take this licensing at face value, in part because the photographer, Elsa Dorfman, uploaded many photos to Commons under a dual/tri-licensing scheme of GFDL, CC-BY-SA, and sometimes CC-BY. However, Commons does not accept GFDL alone as a valid license for photos licensed after October 15, 2018. What I'm trying to figure out is if this photo is elligible for a move to Commons, either by:

being GFDL licensed before the aforemntioned date or
actually being dual licensed alongside an eligible CC license somewhere.

I've already checked the Wayback Machine for the Britannica article, but the captures didn't seem to retain licensing info. I'm bringing this here on the off-chance someone can dig up some more info. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:TIME Magazine - Pentagon Papers cover.jpg

[edit]

The Pentagon Papers article primarily focuses on the legal battles surrounding republication of the Papers by the New York Times and Washington Post. Even if you did need an image to represent the press coverage this received (I don't think you do), it should probably come from one of these two newspapers, not one that is never brought up in the article. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Berryz Kobo Ai no Album 8 Limited Edition (PKCP-5201) cover.jpg

[edit]

False rationale. This secondary image is not "placed in the infobox at the top of the article" to serve as the primary identification. And there is no discussion of the secondary artwork in the text of the page. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Berryz Kobo Special Best Vol. 1 Limited Edition (PKCP-5130) cover.jpg

[edit]

False rationale. This secondary image is not "placed in the infobox at the top of the article" to serve as the primary identification. And there is no discussion of the secondary artwork in the text of the page. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Millennium Falcon toy.jpg

[edit]

per COM:TOYS - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:TV la plus belle voix.jpg

[edit]

In my opinion, the simple logo (text) without the background is too simple to be copyrighted. Maybe in the PD in the United States and copyrighted in France. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 21

File:Miles Dyson.webp

[edit]

The previous copy (File:Miles Dyson (T2).jpg) was tagged as replaceable and then deleted. Unfortunately, as I found out just now, this copy was uploaded somehow. Sure, the Joe Morton version may illustrate this character, but how is this image "irreplaceable"? The free image of Morton is already used in Miles Dyson article, and I'm still unconvinced that deleting this image would worsen an understanding of this fictional character, important or not. George Ho (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 19

File:1850 McElderry.jpg

[edit]

This photo seems AI generated, and if it were AI-upscaled, I wasn't able to find the original photo. Endof talk 02:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Endof: What make you suspect that? There's no metadata. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons It does have the vibe of AI upscaling, but an alternate angle from Find a Grave seems to confirm that the photo is legitimate and unaltered. Additionally, if it was AI upscaled, why only go up to 400x500 pixels? Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Find a Grave photo has me a bit more convinced that the photo is real. Despite that, I feel the photo is AI-enhanced at least. The beard in the Find a Grave photo looks curly, while the beard in 1850 McElderry.jpg looks a bit more straight. The suit and skin in 1850 McElderry.jpg seem too smooth as well. More work should be done to establish the provenance, but I agree to move to Commons. Endof talk 21:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png

[edit]

File:Estadio Azteca Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This logo is non-copyrightable in the United States. What about Mexico's threshold of originality? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:SnowballSimulations.jpg

[edit]

Non-free plot or map. Possibly recreatable form source data or replaceable with a similar figure from a CC-licensed open-access paper. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 18

File:Stephen Wertheim - Tomorrow The World - The "Grand Area" as per the CFR planners, October 1940.jpg

[edit]

Fails multiple WP:NFCCP

Fails WP:NFCC1 free equivalent is easily created. Just shaded regions on a map.
Fails WP:NFCC8 Map is only mentioned in a citation at Foreign interventions by the United States. Even if map was more directly discussed, this particular rendition is Stephen Wertheim's interpretation of events 80 years later, not the original concept as proposed in a 1940 Council on Foreign Relations report.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Plies - Definition of Real.png

[edit]

False rationale. This secondary image is not "at the top of the article" serving as the primary means of identification. As an alternative piece of artwork, it has no discussion about it in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Tranzgression.jpg

[edit]

False rationale. This secondary image is not "at the top of the article" but placed below the main non-free image. As an alternative cover, its existence the difference in artwork is not discussed on the page. No reason to have this image. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Jim Abrahams photo.jpeg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as there is a freely available image of the subject. The non-free file was previously removed by another editor on these grounds, but the uploader then restored it to the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Speedy delete Trivial failure of NFCC 1. The freely licensed photo is just high quality enough to identify the subject, so a non-free image cannot be used in this capacity. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 16

File:Steve (Minecraft).png

[edit]

Replaceable with c:File:Steve? 2.png per WP:NFCC#1 - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep for a few reasons:

The free image is not a full shot of the character and is generally of lower quality. It does not depict the character as well, the lighting is less even, the angle is awkward, almost the entire lower part of his body is left out of the shot, and other bits are obstructed. This should, in my opinion, be enough to justify a non-free image.
I am of the belief that these non-free depictions uploaded by interns of regional YouTube channel cannot be used to wash legitimate copyright. Steve's design is still copyright of Microsoft.
There are cases of non-free images being chosen over the free counterpart for similar reasons as this. A few examples are Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_June_2#File:Anakin_Skywalker_ROTS.webp, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_June_2#File:Terminator-2-judgement-day.jpg, among others.

λ NegativeMP1 18:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Not much is obstructed in the image and in that case, what do you feel for the images on the headers of SpongeBob characters? Also, low quality images can still be header images, like the one for Luke Skywalker. Also, wax models of characters are much different than the actual characters themselves. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm not particularly the biggest fan of the SpongeBob character infoboxes either. I find the whole "character designs are free to use because a regional marketing team said so" to be a sort of loophole that should be avoided. Like, yeah, they might technically be suitable for Commons, but it still feels like a loophole that I think should be avoided. And from a Wikipedia perspective I think infoboxes should target the best, most representative image of the character with accurate licensing. And you're right that infobox images can be low quality... but that doesn't mean intentionally make others low quality because others are.

Either case, there's no free depiction that would be suitable for the infobox that showcases Steve's full design, legs included. λ NegativeMP1 19:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per Negative. I've made my arguments known with other instances such as Leon Kennedy and the whole "Capcom France" issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep The non free image is better quality and shows the full body, so it is not equivalent to the free image. Assuming that it is free. Commons has an issue with totally ignoring the precautionary principle in these cases as there is pretty heavy evidence Microsoft would not make a Minecraft video copyright-free on purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 15

File:Atlanta MLS.svg

[edit]

Maybe this logo can be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Columbus Crew SC Logo.svg

[edit]

Logo below the threshold of originality, should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:ColoradoRapidsOld.png

[edit]

Below the threshold of originality, it should maybe be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: IMO, the soccer ball is included in the TOO. Ineligible for Commons. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The ball design is too simple. Nothing complex. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The ball in the logo is basically a reproduction of the design made popular by the Adidas Telstar. So it is below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Los Angeles Galaxy logo (1996-2007).svg

[edit]

How did/would the US Copyright Office judge this logo? Copyrightable or not? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Chicago Fire SC logo.png

[edit]

I searched the US Copyright Office's records and couldn't find a registration for this logo. Is this copyrightable or not in their view? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:El Paso Locomotive FC logo.svg

[edit]

Is this logo copyrightable? I think not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Wolverhampton Wanderers FC crest.svg

[edit]

Is this logo at least PD-US? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep but relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}: The TOO is not meet in the United States, but still copyrighted in the UK + Northern Ireland. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Star Wars, Starfighter logo.jpg

[edit]

I think this is under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons, below TOO. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Evian logo.png

[edit]

IMO, this file probably fails WP:TOO, could still be copyrighted in France, but not in the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

France has its own template regarding threshold of originality, so move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:ColinCampbellRossImage.jpg

[edit]

In my opinion, there are doubts concerning the copyright notice of "fair use". However, it could not be eligible for Commons because this work could still be copyrighted in Australia, despite being PD in the United States only. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons. If that's a work by the Australian government or an Australian state, move to Commons, as crown copyright expires after 50 years. I think this photo was never published in the US before it could be copyrighted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 14

File:Robert Johnson.png

[edit]

I was reflexively going to replace this image with a definitely free replacement, but I am questioning whether this file is actually copyrighted by Delta Haze as stated. We know that this photo was taken by a photographic studio in 1936. If this photo was published in 1936 (in the legal sense of the 1909 Copyright Act), then it would have required a copyright renewal for continued protection. This renewal never occurred and thus the photo fell into the public domain. I would argue that when Johnson commissioned the studio to take a picture of him, the studio was essentially selling him that photo. As control over the physical photo left the hands of the copyright holder (the studio) and entered into the hands of a third party (Johnson) in 1936, I believe this image was first published in 1936, not 1989.

If consensus is that this photo is public domain, than this can be moved to Commons. Otherwise, this should be replaced the aforementioned free photo currently hosted on Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support move to Commons. As per the listing rationale, and thank you for the research! This is an iconic photograph that I'm happy to see emerge from the labyrinth of copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 13

File:ST-TNG The Game.jpg

Screenshot of an augmented reality video game, whilst the main point of the episode, may be either replaceable by brief free text or not contextually significant to The Game (Star Trek: The Next Generation). George Ho (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

It’s the single most memorable thing about the episode. ~2026-44291-74 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

How would deleting a screenshot of the most memorable thing impact the understanding of the episode in question? George Ho (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:National Basketball Association logo.svg

[edit]

This was originally nominated under the theory that this was public domain but was closed as keep due to lack of evidence. I now have the ~~receipts~~ tickets to probably prove it. Tickets for NBA All-Star games from the 70s and 80s included the logo but routinely lacked notice (1970 1971 1985). Media guides from this era also included the logo and lacked notice (). Logopedia does note a 2017 change in typeface and colors from the 70s/80s logo, but those are not independently copyrightable. This logo is public domain and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply

@Based5290: I don't think we can move this file to Commons in any case as its a vectorization taken from elsewhere (brandlogos.net), and SVG code carries its own separate copyright from the thing it depicts. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Vectorization copyright is confusing to me, but if that's the case and we can't find a free vectorization, then we can upload a raster version as a stopgap and delete this file. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)reply

@Based5290 and @Howardcorn33: I just overwrote the file with a vector version found at NBA's website. Properly done vector versions sourced from the owners of the logos, whether the logo is copyrighted or not, is always preferable. We should only use raster logos if a properly vectorized version can't be found. My stance is that vectorization doesn't generate a new copyright. I found the vector here, and adapted to remove the "Draft 2026" words. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Even if vectors of well known entities are deleted, other users would quickly upload a replacement vector. Discussions like that are silly. Major entities will almost always use vector versions when displaying their logo. Also, Wikipedia's policy for non-free logos is to say get vectorized versions of copyrighted logos from the owner of the logo or official sources. Using raster versions of major entities when vector versions are available from the entities themselves would degrade Wikipedia's quality, and it wouldn't be the branding intended by the entities. Logos should be high quality vectors.

The discussion should be about whether the logo is free or not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

My stance on vector logos is similar to how Wikipedia treats reproductions of paintings: Simple reproductions do not generate a new copyright. Regardless, we should never use autotraced vectors ever. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

SVGs are code files and copyrightable just like other programs that is the opposite of Wikipedia:FREER 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

If we follow your line of thought, many logos would end up in ways which don't meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands which are the subjects of articles. Reproductions of copyrighted paintings do not generate a new copyright for the reproduction, any faithful reproduction would have its copyright granted to the copyright holder of the painting. Similarly, any raster or vector version of a copyrighted logo would be copyrighted to the copyright holder of the design of the logo, not the vector or raster representation. The copyright is for the design of the logo, not its reproduction. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

The visual output of the vector does not get a new copyright but the code does. Logos don't need to "meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands" they just need to be accurate 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Meeting the quality standards and respecting the intended branding by the entities is a legitimate part of the fair use of the logos here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I think you aint understand how SVG rendering works in here it does not display the SVG directly but generates a PNG at fixed resolution and shows it inspect element on any SVG file in wikipedia and you will see it you can get the same quality by exporting the SVG to png 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

And also, SVG is a free format, and there are online converters from non-free formats such as .AI, EPS, CDR, etc... Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

No SVG source code is non-free under Wikimedia rules as the format is free, but the output of each vector can be. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply

This is so wrong it is like saying all Android apps are free because android is Apache 2.0 look at c:Help:SVG#Copyright 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

No, I'm not saying that. Although the Android logo has a registration (VA0001789579), the logo has a free license (CC-BY 3.0). The Twitter logo before Elon Musk acquired it and renamed it X also has a registration (VA0001950611) but is also under a free license (Apache License 2.0). The Nvidia logo was granted a registration, VA0001427710 (which I disagree as I think the logo is below the threshold of originality), but it also has the same license as the Twitter one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Don't get me wrong, source codes of anything are perfectly copyrightable, but SVG codes are under free licenses as the format itself is free (even if the output is not). See this page if you don't understand my argument. Non-free file formats are not accepted on Wikimedia projects. Other vector formats (.AI, EPS, CDR) are non-free formats and their source codes are therefore non-free too. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

No it is not this is like saying code of all Android apps is free because android is Apache 2.0 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I don't buy Candidyeoman's arguments that the SVG code would not be copyrighted due to the file format being free. The issue is not with the format of the file but rather the content of the file, which was written and created by a third party. As with any other code, this can be protected by copyright separate from the design. Furthermore, they appear to be bludgeoning the discussion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Created a free vectorization. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm not disrupting the discussion in any way and I don't want to. See this section, it formulates my argument here. It says that "US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo..." I even overwrote this file with one found at NBA's website, as recommended by the policy.

Also, when you click "Original file" on the page about the file, the original SVG appears.

I already run into some vandalisms of national soccer team pages where they insert non-free logos that shouldn't be there (child entities without their own branding).

I don't want to move this discussion off-topic, but I don't understand Wikipedia sometimes. For example, they kept the coat of arms of Canada out of the page about Canada itself...

If you see my page on Commons, I'm actually trying to get many logos vectorized, some since February.

Wikimedia projects have an exception for simple faithful reproductions of paintings. Since 2008, the skill and labour used to reproduce the painting is not considered.

I'm trying to give all my arguments, but they come to my mind in parts sometimes. Also, don't refer to me as a "they", I find it offensive. I'm a man.

Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vectorization concerns aside, can we address the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons. Let's hope the NBA doesn't have a secret copyright to the design of this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

And let's hope I can convince the guy who created an alternate vectorization of this logo to help requests still pending at the graphics lab illustration workshop. If you don't want to use the official vectorizations, it must be manually traced, not autotraced, as a guy here did to the Chicago Bulls logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

He gave the same rationale at the discussion involving the Kansas City Chiefs logo (which I think is below the threshold of originality), but the logo was moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

And then he autotraced the Chicago Bulls logo using a paid software. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 11

File:George W. Grace.png

Possibly freely replaced by File:George W. Grace with John Howe.jpg? On one hand, this photo is pretty low quality and depicts him wearing sunglasses. On the other hand, we generally opt for free use photos when they can replace fair use photos, even if it means a reduction in quality. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Do you know when the Honolulu Star-Bulletin registered for copyright (or where to look for such)? We might be able to find clearer images like you did for Sachio Ashida. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I haven't checked the copyright status of later Star-Bulletin issues, but the problem is that there don't seem to be many photos of him at all, much less ones that aren't protected by copyright. Maybe there is a photo of him floating around in some yearbooks, but I don't have access to those. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Condensation Cube of Haacke.jpg

[edit]

Move to Commons: the depicted artwork is not copyrightable because it is just a cube, and the condensation patterns on the cube's surface are not determined by a human author. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons On one hand, the threshold originality for 3D works seems to be fairly low in the US with the registration of Cloud Gate. On the other hand, it's a plexiglass cube with some water inside. There's a thousand producers of plexiglass cubes, and unless they've all seen this exact artwork, one would have a very difficult time arguing that this particular cube is copyrightable. I agree with the nominator that the patterns formed by the water on the inside of the cube are from a non-human author (if it is even correct to apply the idea of authorship to statistical processes), and one could imagine someone accidentally recreating a similar cube with condensation on the inside, which would defeat arguments that this arrangement is original. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

May keep: In my opinion, there are no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

There's no question that the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for sculptures, but the nom is arguing that the sculpture is not protected by copyright at all (in the same way that many simple logos do not receive copyright protection). If the sculpture is not protected by copyright, it may be freely reproduced, including in freely licensed photography. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Opening crawl.jpg

[edit]

Arguably public domain per C:TOO. Star Wars logo is already below TOO, text is too short and cut off to be copyrightable. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

If it is PD under TOO, then I'll happily source a higher resolution version. Sceptre (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Well, this went absolutely nowhere, so I'm setting the license to PD myself. The description said that the third section of the image is a still, but I don't see any elements other than the text with a simple font, so it's surely PD. I frequent Wikimedia Commons, and this definitely looks like something that adheres to its guidelines.

Whoever sees this, feel free to close this discussion. @Sceptre, feel free to upload a higher resolution version, then I'll upload the file to Commons (as if done in reverse order, you would have to request permission to overwrite). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)reply

@Dabmasterars; my only concern here is that the second sentence might surpass WP:LIMITED, but that fight is obnoxious to have on Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the phrase long and original enough to qualify for copyright protection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

IMO if there is concern about the text at the bottom, it could be cropped to show two lines "It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking", which is probably below TOO for text and still mostly communicates the same point. Weak move to Commons for the current version, Stronger move to Commons if the crop I suggested is made. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 8

File:We got the beat 1980.png

[edit]

This 1980 UK/Portuguese release isn't necessary, IMO, and may have exceeded WP:NFCC#3a. Also, it's not a good substitute or replacement for the 1982 US reissue, which should reflect the song's greater notability. George Ho (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The song was originally released only in the UK and Portugal before being re-recorded for the wider release. "Take On Me" by a-ha is a song which has a very similar history to "We Got the Beat" in that it had an original single release which failed to chart before being re-recorded and re-released to wide success; its Wikipedia page shows the original 7" release's cover in the main infobox. In other instances where a band or artist changes an cover after release, Wikipedia tends to use the original version first (see Street Survivors, Creatures of the Night, Yesterday and Today).

Hostagecat (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

(see Street Survivors, Creatures of the Night, Yesterday and Today)

Those are albums, not singles. Also, please be wary of WP:OTHERIMAGE arguments before making any more of them. Not all song articles use cover arts of original releases, e.g. I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song) and Should I Stay or Should I Go. Of course, I might have exemplified the OTHERIMAGE argument by doing so. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 7

File:King Features retro.png

[edit]

Fair use rationale is wrong, as the infobox uses the new logo. I don't think there's much value in retaining this historical logo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

King Features Syndicate acquired its modern name in 1915. If the logo was used before 1931 it is in the public domain. However, I don't see any evidence of its use before 1959 at least on Logopedia, and I can't find a trademark registration for it either. I'd be happy for someone to do some research. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)reply

You are looking at the wrong Logopedia page. See wikia:logos:King Features Syndicate instead.

It says that one logo was used from 1929 to 1942. That one meets {{PD-1923}}. Then there's a gap with no information, and then the logo on Wikipedia was used from 1960 to 1972. I would say that the differences between the PD logo and the one on Wikipedia do not meet the threshold of originality, and most logos from that period meet {{PD-US-no notice}}, so it is probably in the public domain regardless. Should the logo nevertheless be copyrighted, the older logo could serve as a replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Good find, thanks! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Logopedia is user-generated and not a reliable source. Can we get a better source to verify publication details?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The letterhead used in 1929 featured the logo claimed to have been in use between 1929-1943, so that one is definitely in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

King Features Syndicate seems to have complied with all the formality stuff, so this ultimately a threshold of originality question. Compared to the 1929 logo, the new logo joins the two banners into one and moves the text closer together. I do not think this new logo is copyrightable as a derivative work of the old logo, since such changes are too simple to be original. I believe this file is PD in the US and can thus be a Move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Tintin and the Black Island - Unicorn Theatre Company.jpg

[edit]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. The photo itself is not subject to sourced critical commentary. Policy requires that a non-free image both enhance the readers' understanding of the article text and that its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. This image lacks contextual significance. The uploader contested the original deletion tag on the file's talk page. ✗plicit 07:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Green Wing Poster.jpg

[edit]

Says "Replaceable" in "Replaceable?", so clearly not compatible with WP:NFCC#1 and is High resolution with 770px × 395px, so it Violates WP:NFCC3B.

Non-free media information and use rationale true for Green Wing
Description	A poster advertising the first series of Green Wing, featuring the nine main characters. From left to right, Alan (Heap), Joanna (Haywood), Angela (Alexander), Caroline (Greig), Martin (Theobald), Guy (Mangan), Mac (Rhind-Tutt), Sue (Gomez) and Boyce (Chris).
Source	Holborn Studios and photographed by Dean Chalkley.
Article	Green Wing
Portion used	Represents only a poster advertising the programme and does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the programme in any way.
Low resolution?	High resolution (770px × 395px) image, suitable for web usage only.
Purpose of use	Identification of the television programme Green Wing.
Replaceable?	Replaceable
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Green Wing//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussiontrue

Non-free media information and use rationale true for British humour
Description	A poster advertising the first series of the surreal British sitcom Green Wing, featuring the nine main characters. From left to right, Alan (Heap), Joanna (Haywood), Angela (Alexander), Caroline (Greig), Martin (Theobald), Guy (Mangan), Mac (Rhind-Tutt), Sue (Gomez) and Boyce (Chris).
Source	Holborn Studios and photographed by Dean Chalkley.
Article	British humour
Portion used	Represents only a poster advertising the programme and does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the programme in any way.
Low resolution?	High resolution (770px × 395px) image, suitable for web usage only.
Purpose of use	Identification of the British comedy television programme Green Wing, an example of British humour.
Replaceable?	Replaceable
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of British humour//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussiontrue

SportsLover1967 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 6

File:Teamsters Union Logo.svg

[edit]

Plausibly public domain as the organization was founded in 1903. Does anyone know if the logo was first published after 1930 or if original elements were added after 1930? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep as non-free Logopedia says this iteration of the logo has been in use only since 2009. A trademark registration ~~seems to roughly affirm the timeline given at Logopedia~~ says a B&W version of this logo was in use in 1940 which does raise possible {{PD-US-no renewal}}, but the coloring is probably independently copyrightable. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

According to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable.... For example, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a visual art work if the author merely added relatively few colors to a preexisting design or simply created multiple colorized versions of the same basic design. (§ 906.3 "Colors, Coloring, and Coloration") In this case, blue and yellow is a familiar pair of colors and existed in a 1997 logo variant.

However, it looks like the 2009 version changed the appearance of the horses and added some dots in the middle of the wheel; that may or may not be sufficient authorship to be a derivative work. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

The Teamsters have a copyright registration (VA0002432103) for one of their logos, though I can't tell which one (the publication date is listed as 2022-05-31, which doesn't correspond to any of the dates on Logopedia). Also, it's possible that they did not submit a copy of the preexisting logo for the Office staff to compare with the new logo being registered - copyright applicants don't always submit complete and accurate information. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Wall Township Seal.png

[edit]

Non free file may actually be free. This seal, which was created on January 26, 1972 according to Wall Township's official website, does not appear to have any copyright claims with the U.S. Copyright Office. This file should be transferred to Commons and tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Insignia}}. ForeverFlying (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)reply

That template may only be used with images which were published without copyright notice. Do you have evidence that within the original publication of the seal, there was not an associated copyright notice? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 00:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I do not have evidence for that. The relevant statute for the specific seal is Township of Wall, NJ Code § 44, first adopted on November 8, 1978. A history for the seal is provided in a 2001 newspaper article that indicates it was modified from a submission for Wall Township's Beautification Committee's contest for creating a seal in January 1972. The seal in the newspaper clipping does not have a copyright statement associated with it. ForeverFlying (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I also found this ordinance from 1998 that references an amendment to "The Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Wall, 1977," § 1-5. I couldn't find the 1977 revised ordinances online. I can try to contact the township and obtain a copy of the 1977 revised general ordinances and anything regarding to the adoption of the township official seal in 1972. ForeverFlying (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Michael Jordan Anti-Drug PSA, 1987.png

[edit]

Could this fail WP:NFCC#1? The advertisement had no copyright notice in 1986 CBS commercial break which is a full video, and 1987 ABC commercial break. A search with the U.S. Copyright Office for "Michael Jordan anti-drug" and published 1986-1987 McDonald's U.S. TV advertisements that were registered within 5 years yields zero matching names or description. Artemhao (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

As far as I can tell, US definition of publication post-1978 would've excluded TV broadcasts. I am not aware of evidence that the ad would have been distributed in physical records. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

per Copyright Office 1906.1, I think TV advertisements are considered publication because the tapes were distributed to a group of TV networks to the public broadcast. U.S. Copyright Office has registrations of TV advertisements, like this example: , , . Artemhao (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I will let others determine the copyright status. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

This is unrelated to th copyright thing (80s commercials are a minefield I've explored before and am not tempted to down again), but wouldn't sound sample compliment the article better? --RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons While Howardcorn33 is correct that TV broadcast alone does not constitute publication, per https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101, the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. For a commercial, copies would have had to been distributed to several news stations for public broadcast, so this commercial was indeed published. Therefore, the failure to affix notice or register the work forfeited the copyright protection (looking through every registration for McDonalds and Michale Jordan under the motion picture category at the copyright office gives no relevant results). For completeness, I will note that there is some weirdness with notice requirements for short advertisements: per In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, [...] a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work (). This would maybe factor int the 1987 cut of the ad, but this would not apply to the two minute 1986 ad. Even if the 1987 did have a copyright notice as described above, it would not prevent forfeiture on the 1986 ad. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I have a concern whether the 2-minute ad was published first. But we have 2 reasons, All Response Media notes that a 120 second ad are often used to launch products and to "evoke emotion and deliver a longer message", but "can dominate ad breaks". The second is that 120-second PSA ad was launched to build an emotional connection and memories, once the audiences fully understand the ad, it is shortened to 1 minute. Artemhao (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I think that this was published but it may not be public domain. Look at this case where the copyright office originally refused to register a film published in 1983 without a valid copyright notice but they eventually registered it because the 1978 law says it must have been published and “publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner” without a notice to lose copyright. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

That's an interesting argument, but I don't think that case is particularly applicable here. In that case, the only public screening was held for the purpose of securing an acquisition or distribution deal, but no such deal ever materialized. By contrast, the Michael Jordan PSA was definitely given to television stations, as opposed to a simple offering to do so. I would argue that this is an act of public distribution, even if it was only confined to television stations. The Copyright Office rule about short motion pictures supports this idea; both advertisers and the Copyright Office understood that distribution of a commercial to television stations without a copyright notice could result in copyright forfeiture (and thus advertisers sought to ease notice requirements). Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Also, while the McDonald's 1986 commercial might be public domain, the background music in it is potentially copyrighted (since it's a piano background instrumental track that we don't know who made it, thus it's an orphaned work). Artemhao (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

July 25

File:Common face of one euro coin.png

[edit]

I do not think this is non-free due to common (not national) sides of Euro coins being freely licensed. Reproduction of euro coins is allowed, and there are many free images of euro coins available on Wikimedia Commons. The only restriction that applies to Euro coins is prohibiting damaging the image of the euro, but that's only a non-copyright restriction. - MJGTMKME123 19:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - this side of the Euro coin seems free per COM:CUR Euro. Move to Commons if it does not already exist there? -Consigned (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

There are many Euro coin images available on Commons that are similar to or identical to these (apparently) non-free images:

File:Euro_1_cent.gif (free version) — File:1 cent euro coin common side.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_2_cent.gif (free version) — File:2_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro_5_cent.gif (free version) — File:5_eurocent_common_1999.png (non-free version)
File:Euro 10 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_10_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 20 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_20_cent_euro_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro 50 cent.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_50_eurocent_coin_(first_series).jpeg (non-free version)
File:Euro_1_coin.gif (free version) — File:Common_face_of_one_euro_coin_(first_series).jpg (non-free version)
File:Piece_Comm-2Euro_(pile).jpg (free version) — File:Common_face_of_two_euro_coin_(2007).jpg (non-free version)

- MJGTMKME123 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Some of the photos on Commons don't have their authorship tagged correctly; see e.g. . It is questionable if they would survive a deletion request. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I agree that we shouldn't use images of Euro coins under WP:NFC. However, I'm unsure if the enwiki photos are truly nonfree, or if commons:Template:PD-Art applies. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think a Wikimedia Commons user creating and uploading new, freely licensed euro coin photos would be better. - MJGTMKME123 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The PD-Art template is for 2D artworks, coins are considered as 3D artwork, so the pictures themselves could be copyrighted. Therefore, I think that the non-free EU coin common side images should be deleted and replaced with free ones (if they already exist, otherwise new ones can be created) Soviet Pepega (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

update: transfer to Commons, as coins scans are permitted on Commons without license. Janhrach (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
But are those coin scans or photographs? In any case, delete the non-free files and replace them with free ones. - MJGTMKME123 15:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

July 4

File:The Core album cover.jpeg

[edit]

Likely below TOO: calligraphy is not subject to copyright in the US (although it may be sometimes in Japan), and the white paper background doesn't add much. Suggest moving to Commons. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep as is. If the textured background is a result of graphic design, then it is too complex. ✗plicit 01:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

June 12

File:LeonDoliceChryslerBuildingPastel1945.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://bid.peterboroughauctions.us/online-auctions/peterborough-auctions-llc/leon-dolice-1892---1960-chrysler-building-new-york-city-1940s-7171452

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

File:LeonDoliceRainyDayOil1940.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/landscape-paintings/leon-dolice-rainy-day-new-york-city-modernist-urban-cityscape-mid-century-street-scene/id-a_9907362/

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

File:LeonDoliceEast34thStEtching1951.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

File:LeonDoliceDowntownManhattanGouacheAndWatercolor1936.jpg

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

File:LeonDoliceEmpireStateBuildingFromMadisonSquareColorWoodcut1935.png

[edit]

How do we know this was published without notice? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Magog the Ogre -- Shouldn't a search of records in the US Copyright Office be sufficient? (https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/) Delabrede (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I've answered this question at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeonDoliceThirdAveElOil1940.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Here are pictures of the front and back of one of the copies he made.

https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Leon-Dolice-Empire-State-Building-from-M/4ADD9C57AD37BA00E85CCE08CA125C07

It does not have a copyright notice. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

June 2

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

[edit]

This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak move to Commons The flip seems to come from https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=945cd22c17384fa3913d9e6854a7c48d&mediatype=photo. However, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News looks to be the actual originator of the photo, preceding the April publications by the AP by several months. This newspaper seems to have lacked notice, so the photo itself is PD.

However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.

If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply

No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply

There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Also an interesting advertisement that is free by virtue of having no notice for it [https://www.newspapers.com/image/382105267/?match=1&terms=%22spoony%20singh%22/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply

This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.

As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.

So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply

That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)reply

If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply

This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)reply

May 30

File:Torrent Project Screenshot.png

[edit]

While the logo at the top isn't copyrightable (and is already on Commons), the text below is far, far above the threshold of originality. We wouldn't tolerate it being inserted verbatim into an article; it's no better encoded onto an image. —Cryptic 00:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)reply

The logo was tagged as being protected protected by copyright and being used under Fair Use for several years until I uploaded it to Commons and nominated the ENWP upload for SD. If anything it shows how ENWP have been slapping Fair Use justifications on virtually any logo with zero regard if the rationale is even valid in the slightest, knowing there is no consequences Trade (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete file and upload it to Commons. The text shown in the screenshot consists of short, generic descriptive phrases with no real originality or creativity. There are tens of thousands of in-arricle quotes on Wikipedia there are far longer and more complicated than what is being shown here meaning the whole argument for Fair Used have no basis in any ENWP policy or copyright law anywhere in the world. In other words, the short phrases depicted are noncopyrightableTrade (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

@Cryptic: How is two sentences and a few short phrases "far, far above the threshold"??

Solomon Ucko (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

I can't find the case but I believe a phrase that was something along the lines of '(Organisation) are awarding the player of the year (or something similar) after (team versus another team), so congratulations (person name)' managed to qualify for copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices addresses this in section 308.2 with examples in 313.4. The only example that is even in the same universe as the text on this image is "Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or other short expressions." in 313.4(C) (and paraphrased in our {{PD-textlogo}} template).

This is not that. There are thousands, likely tens of thousands, of ways this text could have been phrased while still conveying the same uncopyrightable ideas, even before considering which site of the "more than 300 others" to pick as an example.

The in-article quotes Trade refers to are just that: quoted, and attributed, and used under fair use. Were there any possibility that content of similar length was in the public domain, we would be using it for narration. Instead, we block users for copying less text than this into articles all the time. —Cryptic 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Move to Commons. CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 192 (D. Me. 1995), "[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans" may not be copyrighted. The first sentence is a short slogan, while the second is functional description that is too simple and lacks any creative element to qualify for copyright protection. I suspect nom is not arguing about the other elements of the screenshot, so they don't need addressing. ✗plicit 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply

File:NMIFA crest.svg

[edit]

File:NMIFA crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I want a discussion about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality and how the US Copyright Office would judge such a logo. Someone also uploaded a raster version of this logo to Wikimedia Commons, which I nominated for deletion as a way to start a discussion about this logo. You can have your opinion. If it's below the threshold of originality, the vector version will be moved to Commons. If it's above, the raster version will be deleted from there, and the vector will be kept locally at English Wikipedia as a fair use logo. You can also join the discussion at Commons here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Sasquatch voted to keep the raster file at Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

[edit]

This is in a bit of a weird spot. It's a German magazine republishing an image which may be hosted on Commons for the reasons outlined at File:St Paul's Survives.jpg. I'm not sure about German copyright and threshold of originality, but this can certainly be relicensed as PD-US-free if the block of text next to "Die City von London brennt!" is blurred. I'm not sure about a move to Commons, but I personally would not consider this a derivative work of the image in a legal sense. Therefore, we could have something like PD-text for the components of the German magazine (minus that block of text) and PD-US-no renewal for the image for a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)reply

For older nominations, see the Files for discussion archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

The discussions in this section have been nominated for at least 6 days. After 7 days, they may be closed.

August 23

File:Dragostea din tei music video.png

I don't think this file is irreplaceable (as required by NFCC #1) as it only seem to illustrate a fairly simple dance. Dance moves are replicable and not copyrightable, so a free alternative could be created through a person dancing the same dance (as seen on Y.M.C.A. (song)). There could very likely be a near-identical dance move on Commons already, which I'll check. Furthermore, I also don't think the dance has enough discussion in the article right now to even warrant a free photo. Rose Abrams (T C L) 16:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete, after being a bit on the fence on this one, because I think the image really illustrates something essential about the music video; however, this article is about the song, so I believe it is on WP:NFCC8 that it fails. If it was an article about the music video itself, then I would be leaning keep. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Suder.png

Couldn't figure out why else this image of a character is necessary other than visual identification. Indeed, I question the image's contextual significance to the list of characters or subject of discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Unless I am missing a very subtle bit of make-up on his face, this is just a photo of Brad Dourif. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Seska.png

Couldn't figure out why else this image of a character is necessary other than visual identification. Indeed, I question the image's contextual significance to the list of characters or subject of discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete This is basically a photo of of Martha Hackett with Bajoran make-up; since we have already an illustration of how this looks on this last page, there is no need for this picture. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Can'tHelpMyselfUK.jpg

Secondary image, not used at the top of the page. No discussion in the article of the artwork. Too many non-free images on the page. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete second alternative cover, does not provide anything additionally useful. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep the single was issued by Australian band, Flowers in May 1980, which changed their name to Icehouse in mid-1981 to avoid confusion with Scottish group, the Flowers. Icehouse issued a re-mixed version of their single for the international market. The article's text states: "this further mix of "Can't Help Myself" was released in various international markets as both 7" and extended 12" vinyl singles (see infobox at right below)" This directs the reader to the image being discussed here. Use of the image helps international (non-Australian) readers identify the subject of the article.Didier Landner (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:CantHelpMyself02.jpg

Secondary image, not used at the top of the page. No discussion in the article of the artwork. Too many non-free images on the page. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete cover of the extended version release, no meaningful additional info provided by it. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep infobox image has no picture sleeve. The article describes an alternate image: "A 10" vinyl single was released in July and had a picture sleeve cover depicting individual images of band members diagonally across the band's name and the single's title (see infobox at right middle)." This helps Australian reader to identify this version of the subject of the article.Didier Landner (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Recent nominations

August 24

August 25

File:Hanoi Jane.jpg

There seems to be some confusion in reliable sources about which photo (or photos) gave Jane Fonda the nickname of Hanoi Jane and was the controversial one among the American public. The Guardian calls the non-free photo the infamous photo, but it then states that there were multiple photos and that There was outrage at the pictures (emphasis added). The Hollywood Reporter uses this public domain image and calls it The 1972 Photo That Turned Jane Fonda Into “Hanoi Jane”. The National Women's History Museum says it was the infamous photograph of Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft bomber appearing to aim at American planes, however, that caused this disdain to spread amongst the general public., which matches up with the description of the public domain image. The Telegraph describes the photo as a picture that was taken of her surrounded by Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft gun. Washington Times (yellow at WP:RSP) says the photo showed Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun targeting U.S. planes, laughing and clapping with enemy soldiers, which matches up with the non-free image.

I did go hunting for this image in contemporary newspapers to prove it was public domain, but I could not find this image at all. I'd argue this image either fails NFCC #8 (not being the correct photo) or NFCC #1 (the public domain image from the same event either also inspired the same controversy or shows how Fonda was perceived by the American public at the time). Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Magnesium torch Cousteau.png

This does not meet NFCC, as the purpose of the image is simply to showcase a device and how it is used. The subject being "the most notable user of such a device" is not relevant, unless the episode/exploration itself were the object of discussion. Free-licensed photos of underwater use of magnesium torches could definitely either exist or be created – in fact, the article already contains a photo depicting overwater use. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. The overwater use is a stretch, not the historically common use, and therefore not really relevant as a lead image. I searched several hours trying to find a free-license photo of underwater use and could not. I uploaded that single frame showing Jacques Cousteau because I could find nothing else; therefore I felt it qualified because I couldn't find an adequate substitute to illustrate scuba diving with a magnesium torch. The only other alternative would be to grab a frame from a black-and-white episode of Sea Hunt where magnesium torches were used at least once, but such an image would have the same issues. I also observed that the word "torch" has an unfortunate second meaning in the UK synonymous with "flashlight", causing searches for "magnesium torch" to be dominated by electric flashlights with magnesium cases. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your effort trying to find a replacement. If you want to put more effort into illustrating the article, I will leave you a tip: You could reach out to some authors of a good non-free photo and ask them to release under a free license – I often do that to illustrate topics I want to support and it often succeeds. I usually have the best luck with small-scale individual users at Instagram and Flickr. Rose Abrams (T C L) 20:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:DontDownloadThisSongVideo.png

NFCC #8. It is not detrimental to the article that this screencap be absent, nor does it significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic as to justify its inclusion. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Per nom. There's already a picture of the album cover, no need for another image. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 26

File:Cracker - To Say I Love You.png

I don't believe this image passes WP:NFCC8. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom: the article does not justify why Sean telling Fitz about his stutter is notable, and the image is essentially used for decoration. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Ian McGregor.gif

Fair use file can be deleted as free portrait available: File:EWS10.10.jpg from the History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group Deadstar (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per WP:NFCC1 and WP:NFCC7: unused non-free image replaced by free alternative. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP LLM Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates