File:Between Midnight and Dawn poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Croscher ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This 1950 American film poster does not carry an attached copyright notice. It is thus in the public domain and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal, I think you go to wp:REFUND to request the deleted revision be restored and then you can export it to Commons via the button in the top-right JayCubby 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the usual way is to re-tag as {{PD-US-no notice}} and then add the file to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions.

I assume that you have access to a high-resolution copy of the entire poster. A copyright notice, if one was used, is usually at the bottom in small text, and this poster might be cropped as there is no whitespace in the borders of the posters. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wong Chik Yeok.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NelsonLee20042020 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May not pass WP:NFCC#8 in the Murder of Wong Chik Yeok article as the article is primarily about the act of killing her rather than her as a person and is not a biography. The object/subject of the article is the crime, not the person. Additionally, nowhere in the article discussed this image as a work. – robertsky (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is how these kinds of articles use these images - see the FAs Shooting of Stephen Waldorf, Murder of Dwayne Jones, Death of Mark Saunders, or really any other article like this. This is what, and I am not exaggerating, nearly every article about the death of an individual person uses. From a policy point of view, I don't see the issue with it - these are BIO1E cases where the person is inextricable from the event, so it satisfies the same rationale as the portrait ones. Why would it not? Using images on event articles involving the death of someone is established, even recommended practice. Take it to the village pump if you want to apply this broadly because this would disrupt tens of thousands of articles, and it would take us hundreds of years to FFD all of them using the same rationale if they are all inappropriate (but, given how established their use is and the contextual reason, it is clearly not). But I think they are appropriate and well within the spirit of the NFCC policy. If we move the Matthew Shepard article to Murder of Matthew Shepard are we going to have to delete the image of him? Ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, there are some cases where images like this have been deleted on the grounds that a non-free image of the person should be limited to an article about the person and thus can't be used in an article about an event where the person was involved. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think those reflect standard practice, of course there's going to be some one offs. It makes little sense, because with BIO1E cases the person and the event are so closely tied, so the same reason for the NFCC rule on portrait photos applies, and yes, not every article needs an image, but that goes for NFCC altogether. Of course it is relevant on the article about one person to see the one person the article is about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a scope for having victim's photos on the article, but the scope should be limited. I am not out to disrupt thousands of articles, but to have the relevance of the photos assessed on a as-needed basis. Shooting of Stephen Waldorf makes sense given that the death was sparked from the mistaken identification. The others less so, but may still be defendable, i.e. Dwayne Jonese was about his appearance, and if the photo was the closest editors can find to show his physical appearance, sure. But for this case, there was nothing about the victim's appearance, looks, or features that would give cause for the crime to happen or help a reader to understand what motivated the perpetrator to commit the act. If I may, I suggest that you read the article without the image loaded or cover and read again with the image. Does it really help you to understand the case better? – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky I just don't see how it's different from any biography. We technically don't need any single image of any historical person, but we allow NFCC uses of portraits of them, because of identification. Why is the need for identification any more pressing there than here? I do not think there is a single biography onwiki where you could not just as easily understand it without the non-free portrait. If we prohibit images of them it will encourage even further people making articles on the victim instead of the event with the justification that an image can be used that way. With a BIO1E case the person is inextricable to the event, so of course it is relevant to see what they looked like for identification purposes, it is an article heavily involving one person the same way a biography is. Why would you need to be able to identify a murder victim any less than you would need to identify a dead author? The former feels more important to see their face than anything. We already use such images with identical rationales on tens of thousands of articles - if this is a problem a wider discussion needs to be had so we can delete them en masse instead of in isolated FfDs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's a lot of logical fallacies to unpack here:

1. you are making false equivalence between a full fledged biography of a dead author (or for the matter of fact, living one, it doesn't matter) whose entire life is pretty much celebrated (or reviled, depending on the notoriety of the person) vs what you are saying here a biography that's significant only for 1 event, the violence enacted against her.
2. it is a slippery slope here that prohibiting images will encourage more of such articles. where is the evidence for that? How many of these articles are started with such an image first? Almost every single article here starts with words first, rather than images. If anything, the argument would have been without such images, no one will want to read and then write other articles if they choose to write.
3. what's with the circular reasoning that the non-free image will help with identification addressing the need for truly needing the images? is the image discussed in the article? Is the image here helping to set context to the article, which details the crime committed, not the person, as per NFCC#8? How so if you think it does? Don't dodge these questions. Don't go back to identification is important, because it is not. Replacing the image with another person's, and the understanding of the crime committed is still the same.
4. you are begging the question. You are placing undue importance on the identification of the person here without seeing the relevance or irrelevance of the image to the text in the article. There is no need to identify the victim, or even anyone in many cases unless the identification or appearance has a direct cause or effect on the case.
5. And for other articles or images, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What other images and articles have are up for their own discussions. In fact, I have stated possible the reasoning to keep the NFCC images at least two of your three examples that you have raised. I am aware of what I am doing here. I am not changing any standards here, but simply applying existing ones.

– robertsky (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. They are equivalent for our purposes, IMO. Why is it that we need to cover someone's full life for identification of them to be relevant?

2. Being able to use an image is a benefit to structuring the article in a person based way, not an event based way. Considering how many of the person -> event based moves we make, this was a consideration that was not brought up at the time, and people may have voted differently if they knew they could not use an image if we moved it to an event based article.

3. The photo of Jones does not indicate the aspect of his appearance which led to him being killed. It is just as illegitimate as this one is. You can understand the Waldorf article just as well without the image (though admittedly that one can be viewed as more of a specific to that page rationale - I was picking out of our "[event] of [name]" type FAs and we don't have very many).

4. It is of course important to identify the victim because that is what the article is about. Why is it important to see a picture of the author? Because you are identifying the subject of the article, which the victim is, whether it is written in an event based format or not.

5. Because it is standard practice and people do it by default. I in fact struggle to find a single well-developed article of this kind that doesn't use an image like this, without a strict tie between appearance and death in the case. If it leads to widespread NFCC violations we need a clearer prohibition against it, because under the standards you are holding this image to the vast majority of images like this are illegitimate so we need to get people to stop uploading them. This includes the uploader of this specific file, who has uploaded dozens of files with the exact same "issue" (I don't think it's an issue), and is continuing to do so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go through points 1-4 because we will inevitably go into a loop.

For point 5, being standard practice does not mean that we should blindly allow everything to go through as per normal. There are edge cases, and there will be edge cases. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when raised individually, it should be evaluated independently of the other articles/images as the situation of each article/image can differ from one and another. Will it determine or build into a case for all similar content is another matter or issue altogether, and it is a bridge that will be crossed when someone is interested in getting rid of a whole class of images, e.g. no victim's images for crime related articles. But given the varying levels of context of each fair-use image to the its article being uploaded for, it will be an extremely difficult bridge to step on. – robertsky (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But your argument for deletion I would say evenly applies for almost all of them. Creating unevenness in our standards is very bad, IMO, we should strive to be as consistent as possible. "being standard practice does not mean that we should blindly allow everything to go through as per normal" - agree with that, but it also means we need to urgently stop people from uploading any more violations. It would be better to completely prohibit the uploading of such images than to have zero rhyme or reason as we do now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmm, this is a tricky one. While yes, it may be standard to include photographs of deceased victims in articles such as these, and she is inextricable from the event, BIO1E simply does not apply because the event is almost completely extricable from her. There is absolutely no confusion, at least in my mind, as to whether the article is about her or her killing. Reading the article through will make that clear, because there is next to no information about Wong herself in it. For convenience, I've quoted all the sentences about her below:

Wong and her husband were a loving couple, and they often went out together for breakfast in the mornings[...]was married with Wong for 36 years and had two daughters[...]When his wife and younger daughter gave him prune juice as a remedy for constipation, Kong erroneously believed they were trying to "torture" him[...]Wong rested in the living room[...]Wong put up a struggle}.

I know I said "about", but I have to concede that they really aren't about Wong. Rather, they are about her marriage, her husband, and her children. If we had sources for facts in the infobox, and I was tasked with creating a "background" section, then I could re-write all of that as "Wong was born c.1953 in the Colony of Singapore and married Kong Peng Yee in 1980. She had what neighbors described as a happy marriage, two children, and lived as a housewife in Seng Kang until her killing." That's it. I do not believe that the reader's understanding of those two sentences would be increased by an image of Wong. Additionally, I have not seen anybody argue that removing the image is detrimental to the anybody's understanding of those two sentences. Thus, this does not pass NFCC#8 in the current article.

As an aside, if we compare this to the other examples given, we note that an image is used in the Waldorf article to demonstrate to the reader the perceived similarities between the two men at the time of the shooting, and we note that the Jones and Saunders articles have substantial content discussing the individuals outside of their deaths. There are, in fact, three paragraphs about Saunders and two about Jones. (Though the NFUR appears incorrect in the Jones article). If those paragraphs were split into their own articles and sent to AFD, they would most likely be merged back, not because the subjects didn't pass the GNG, but because of BIO1E-related arguments. If the information about Wong was split into its own article, it would be deleted due to the complete lack of SIGCOV about her as a person. An article about her husband would likely be merged out of BIO1E concerns. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian I see where you're coming from, but carrying this argument on how much is "enough"? Two or three paragraphs is barely anything compared to the rest of the pages in the aforementioned cases. The FA Disappearance of Natalee Holloway has only one paragraph about her. If we delete this so should we delete the image of Saunders and Jones and Holloway? I would say yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think where exactly that line of "enough coverage" is going to be hard to draw; I would say three paragraphs is actually pretty good. It's more than enough on its own to provide a well-rounded, encyclopedia article about a subject. Print encyclopedias rarely have articles longer than that. One Wikipedia, however, I would say that one paragraph often wouldn't be enough to justify a non-free image. That being said, I wouldn't start on the Natalie Holloway article, given that many academics and news articles argue that her appearance (pretty blonde white teenage girl) is a contributing factor to the reason her case got so much attention, and continues to get brought up nearly twenty years on. In fact, she's arguably one of the most prominent cases of missing white woman syndrome.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree with that, because that seems like exactly the kind of thing that can be explained in text. We don't need an image to explain that someone is white and blonde and people paid more attention to her as a result. People know what white women look like. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]