The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 01:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billie Eilish - NDA.png (delete | talk | history | links | Eilish - NDA.png logs) – uploaded by Infsai ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Billie Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png (delete | talk | history | links | Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png logs) – uploaded by Infsai ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These files aren't cover of any vinyl or even physical. Even these pictures are included in Billie Eilish's "Happier Than Ever Lyric Video", but they can't play a role as "single cover" which have to be included in main infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilasdandelions (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep File:Billie Eilish - NDA.png – meets #1 of WP:NFCI – English source NME, as well as French source NRJ, described the image shared by Eilish on her social media as "NDA"'s single cover. Cover arts nowadays might only be published this way or through label's annoucments, because when the song is uploaded on streaming services, it usually gets the same cover as the album. infsai (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As for File:Billie Eilish - Happier Than Ever (song).png, I have no sources describing this as a cover. Additionally, the single edit also received the same cover art as the parent album. However, covers used in infoboxes should visualize the single, and if there is one specific image tied to a song, it should be used. Interscope released all of Happier Than Ever lyric videos on YouTube, with each using different photos from album cover art shoot, so according to me it accomplishes the visual association with the single and the caption tells the viewer where that image came from. infsai (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep and use {{PD-US-no notice}} instead. ✗plicit 00:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Condemned FilmPoster.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim1357 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Art style seems more 1940s than 1920s, so this is likely from a re-release. As a free image would be available, this fails the non-free criteria.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm cunfused by the text in the FUR in Special:PermanentLink/1269060819:

Is this a poster from 1929 as suggested on the second line?

Is this a poster from a re-release in 1946, as suggested on the third line? If so, was the copyright renewed? I think that the copyright to posters rarely was renewed and the film is in the public domain.

Is this an Austrian poster from the 1930s, as suggested on the second line? The text is not in German, but if an Austrian distributor used a different poster in the 1930s, that poster could have been re-used in the United States at a later point. In that case, the poster is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (and potentially unfree in Austria too).

I note that the poster mentions Film Classics, Inc. (check the bottom-right). The first sentence in the article about the company reads Film Classics was an American film distributor active between 1943 and 1951. Therefore, this seems to be a poster published somewhere between 1943 and 1951 (so 1946 is a possibility). Of course, the same image could have been used earlier too. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons It's an American poster that falls under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I'd link to a larger version where the lack of notice is easier to see, but TMDb is on some kind of blacklist. hinnk (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean IMDB, you probably mean this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019785/mediaviewer/rm1550714624/?ref_=tt_ov_i

That copy seems to be a bit cropped, so a copyright notice might appear in the parts which were removed when cropping.

I have no idea if this is from 1929, the 1930s or 1946. I don't know why Austria was mentioned, but if it is an Austrian poster, then it doesn't need a FUR to be copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the copyright notice (if present) would have appeared in the white border below the poster art. Usually lower-right corner. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I did mean TMDB. You're able to post the IMDb link because IMDb isn't blacklisted. The TMDB version doesn't have that cropping. There's text saying "Country of Origin U.S.A." and "Morgan Litho Corp Cleveland". There's no copyright year anywhere on it. hinnk (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/move to commons hinnk appears correct, {{PD-US-no notice}} would be the correct label. Buffs (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is reasonable doubt to conclude that this image is in the public domain in both its home country and the U.S., and it would not qualify for fair use in any of the four articles it is used in. ✗plicit 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Gannet (1878) in 1914.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shem1805 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Author unknown, publication date unknown. It is not possible to determine the licensing status of the photograph. — Ирука¹³ 12:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/transfer to commons Appears to be a crop of this image first uploaded in 2016. I can find no prior image online that matches otherwise. Therefore it is in the public domain under UK law: " [For works] of unknown authorship, copyright will expire at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the year in which the work was created. However, if the work was made available to the public during that period, copyright will instead expire at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the year in which it was first made available." Marked as {{PD-UK}} Buffs (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the publication on Flickr was the first publication. It could have been published on paper close to when it was taken. In order to determine the copyright status, you need to consult that publication so that you can determine if the photographer is credited, and if so, when the photographer died. Without information on where it was originally published, we have to assume that the photographer was credited, and 1914 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years.

Assuming that the Flickr publication was the first publication ever (as you seem to be implying), then keep in mind that you also have to consider the United States copyright status. If an anonymous work was created in 1914 and first published in 2016, then the United States copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken (see c:Template:PD-US-unpublished), and 1914 was less than 120 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of statements here that range in veracity and applicability. I don't want to go point by point, but I don't see how else to point out the flaws in your reasoning

• There is no evidence that the publication on Flickr was the first publication. Ok, if it was published elsewhere first, then it's incumbent upon you to show that it was published somewhere else first. Otherwise, you're asking me/others to prove a negative, literally an impossible task. You will rarely find something that says "this is the first publication" listed on it.
• It could have been published on paper close to when it was taken Then show me when it was. You can't assume "it might have been published in a paper therefore it is copyrighted".
• In order to determine the copyright status, you need to consult that publication so that you can determine if the photographer is credited, and if so, when the photographer died You are again assuming it was previously published. It's just as likely a series of photos taken at the time and stored in a folder somewhere.
• Without information on where it was originally published, we have to assume that the photographer was credited, and 1914 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. That's not how this works. The photographer is unknown. The date of publication prior to 2016 is unknown. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, that's how we determine the copyright status of an image. We don't work based on hypotheticals. The logic of "Surely someone created it and someone published it at some point in the past probably, therefore it isn't PD unless we know who originally published it, the author, and when he died!" is absurd in the extreme. By this logic, literally no creative works would have unknown authors or unknown dates of publication making such a rule pointless.
• Assuming that the Flickr publication was the first publication ever (as you seem to be implying), then keep in mind that you also have to consider the United States copyright status. If an anonymous work was created in 1914 and first published in 2016, then the United States copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken (see c:Template:PD-US-unpublished), and 1914 was less than 120 years ago. This is a foreign work and it was PD in the UK before it was published on Flickr.
• Getting ahead of "well, you can't determine who the author/publication was. A reliable source has to do that" No we don't and we do it all the time.

If you can prove any of my assertions incorrect, I'll strike my comments. Otherwise, this image is PD. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that it was not published anywhere before it was published on Flickr, and therefore it is in the public domain in the UK. However, it was published somewhere before it was published on Flickr, and therefore it is in the public domain in the US. Don't you see the contradiction in your arguments?

A photographer doesn't magically become anonymous simply because you find a photo somewhere on the Internet that someone took from an unspecified source. You have to check the unspecified source to determine if the photographer is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated it was published somewhere before it was published on Flickr. In fact, I said the opposite.

I never said the work was "anonymous". I said the author was unknown (I only quoted you...you're conflating "anonymous" with "unknown" and that isn't the same). It is literally impossible to check an "unspecified source". However, I have given due diligence to attempt to find said source/author and cannot find it anywhere online. If you can find more info, I'm happy to change my mind, but you cannot claim that an image might have a known author and/or publication and therefore it isn't unknown author/unknown date of publication. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author is not anonymous, then you can't use {{PD-UK-unknown}} as you can only use that tag if the author is anonymous.

If it was never published anywhere before it appeared on Flickr, then it is unfree in the United States until it is 120 years old. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not splitting hairs, yes, the author is anonymous and therefore {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies

I don't concede this point, but if that's what it takes, find. PD in UK, but not in US...either way, the answer is keep. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"PD in UK, but not in US" means we can't keep it. — Ирука¹³ 16:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that means we'd need a FUR...which can definitely be justified for TS Mercury unless you know of other free photos. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MoeLetters.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cincinattus ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I once had no idea what the file was for. After reading the uploader's contributions, it looks like the file was used for accusing Cheng Kung University, but failed to meet the encyclopedia's Reliable sources policy and was thus removed. I believe the file cannot be used for other entries, but I am not sure. Saimmx (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unencyclopedic here without context Buffs (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smiling Irish Eyes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vicvalis ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source does not specify that the item is specifically from the claimed film. Film already has a poster. No indication of copyright status.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025 Masters (snooker) logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KDayne ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The image is not a good representation of the event, as Ronnie O'Sullivan, shown in the prominent position in the red triangle, did not take part. Free alternatives are available for the infobox, for example a photo of Shaun Murphy, the tournament winner, or a photo taken during the event, e.g. file:Kyren Wilson Masters 2025.jpg. — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strong disagree. Using the offical poster of the event is the established norm for all professional snooker tournaments basically since official posters for tournaments have existed, and those that didn't have an official poster don't tend to use an infobox image at all. Images like the one you mentioned can be used in the article itself but should not be used in the infobox, because that needs to be representative of the event as a whole. An image of the winner, Kyren at the table, or even an image from inside the arena are not appropriate to represent the event itself. The fact that Ronnie dropped out before the event doesn't change the fact that that image was the official poster of the event and is therefore the most representative image we could use. KDayne (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I completely agree with KDayne's comment above. This is the official poster for the event (see [1]). It is totally irrelevant that O'Sullivan withdrew.  Alan  (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is "official" is irrelevant, as the poster is a non-free image which is not the subject of the article, or even discussed in the article. It does not add to the reader's understanding of the article, and is therefore not needed. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be used as an argument for keeping. — Voice of Clam (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so let's address your claim on your purported merits, specifically WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8.

Ad #1 is quite ridiculous to even propose as an issue, obviously no free equivalent exists (or could exist) that serves the same encyclopedic purpose; images like the one you propose might serve a different encyclopedic purpose, but clearly not the same as this logo.

Ad #8, the WST logo of the event places it in the historical and cultural context in which it occurred; it shows which players were seen as important ahead of the tournament, helps differentiate it from other Masters tournament and thus demonstrates insights into the branding and significance of the event. Furthermore, it serves as unique visual identification of this specificic tournament, exactly what infobox images should be used for, making it immediately recognizable to readers and thus anchoring the article to its subject; images like the one you propose wouldn't be immediately obvious to be unique to the 2025 Masters, even one of Shaun Murphy holding the trophy (if such a free image existed) wouldn't be necessarily unique to this event, and would obviously not encapture the event as a whole which is about more than just the winner. Lastly, the image contains a depiction of the trophy which in and of itself is valuable. KDayne (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the subject of the article, but of course is not discussed as such in the article. These images are never mentioned in the prose of tournament articles.
In this particular case, O'Sullivan's history in the tournament, and his withdrawal, are discussed in the prose.  Alan  (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I strongly agree with the comments above by @KDayne and @AlH42. Firstly, since this is the official World Snooker Tour poster for the event, no non-free alternative exists. Secondly, a precedent that we had to remove an official WST tournament poster because it is a "non-free image" could potentially affect not only this article but numerous other articles that use similar posters, wreaking havoc across the snooker wiki as a whole. Thirdly, such a move is inconsistent with other sporting articles—if the 2024 Wimbledon Championships article can use the official (non-free) poster from that event, to pick one of numerous examples, why can't a snooker article do the same thing? Finally, despite the late withdrawal of O'Sullivan, the poster still serves as a good representation of the event. O'Sullivan was the previous year's winner, and this was also the 50th anniversary edition of the Masters, which he has won more times (8) than any other player. The other three players represented on the poster, Judd Trump, Kyren Wilson, and Mark Allen, all reached the semi-finals, with Wilson finishing as runner-up. For all these reasons, I believe the image should be left alone. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this image as it is an official World Snooker Tour promotional image. We do not use random player mugshots for tournament infoboxes in the Snooker pages on Wikipedia: we use officially released marketing material by WST, which the current image clearly is. The person calling for deletion just doesn't like the image and is referencing irrelevant policies to justify the removal of the image, which is not a valid reason to call for its deletion. Deleting this image would break the conventions we use in Snooker pages on the site, for literally no reason. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CitroenLover: please comment on the content, not the contributor and don't make false assumptions about my motives. I have nothing against this image, but nominated for the reasons I stated above, which are fully relevant. I accept this nomination is unlikely to succeed, though most of the arguments above appear to be on the basis of "this is how we do it everywhere else" rather than considering the image in its inidividual context. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Voice of Clam, I attempted to address your concerns about the context of the image by pointing out that it features the 2024 champion O'Sullivan plus three of the four 2025 semi-finalists, Allen, Trump, and Wilson. True, the tournament winner Murphy does not appear on the poster — but this in itself is not unusual. Created before the event, WST publicity materials typically highlight the defending champion, the reigning world champion, and players at the top of the world rankings. Posters do sometimes feature players who subsequently withdraw, and don't typically portray surprise winners, but such factors are widely understood to be beyond the promoters' control. Is the image a perfect representation in every possible way? No. But it is more than adequate, and retaining it is important for consistency with other tournament articles. Like it or not, "this is how we do it everywhere else" is an important consideration for snooker editors, given that this is not only a standalone article; it is part of a lengthy series of articles on the Masters going back to the tournament's founding in 1975. Selfgyrus (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Apologies—I accidentally posted the above from my girlfriend's account. But it was written by me -- HH). HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Voice of Clam, with respect, quoting regulations and guidelines at every opportunity possible to justify your position makes you look like a ruleslawyer. Its not particularly helpful and doesn't change my opinion on the situation. As said by other active snooker project editors, this is the convention of the snooker articles and "this is how we do things" is a perfectly valid rationale to reject your proposal. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't believe it fails WP:NFCC#1 as the proposals to use either an image of Shaun Murphy or the suggested Wilson image would not display the same level of context without explanatory descriptions; an image of Murphy as winner would be more suitable and encyclopedic as a thumb within the prose of the article, and there is nothing in the Wilson image that indicates the tournament is the Masters. IMO there is no free equivalent that achieves the same purpose as the current image - as already mentioned, 3 of the 4 players pictured reached the semi-finals and the other is the most successful player in the history of the tournament. With regards to WP:NFCC#8, the use of the official image both correlates to, and instantly indicates to the reader what the article topic is, whereas use of another image may not carry the same level of equivalent encyclopedic context and potentially significantly reduce (and possibly even mislead) a reader's understanding of the topic. Andygray110 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DallasMavericksTexPlate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian.S.W ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dallas Mavericks doesn't seem to be part of the federal government, so there's no reason to assume that their logo is {{PD-USGov}}. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. asilvering (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:KoC Logotype1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GuardianH ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Based on the text in the source indicated on the file information, this seems to have been designed in the 19th century in a form similar to a blazon for a coat of arms. Per c:COM:COA#Definition and representation, there is a difference between the blazon and a representation of it. While the textual definition might be from the 19th century, there is no evidence that this specific representation of the logo is from the 19th century. Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "There is no evidence"? Are you kidding me? You clearly haven't bothered to look. There is plenty of usage of this emblem throughout history.

• 1938
• 1924
• 1911
• 1906

The order itself says that this is the logo/emblem the author created, not just textually described as a blazon would be. Even if you are somehow correct that this is blazon (no evidence that it is), deletion is not the answer. This is an appropriate symbol in widespread use. At the most extreme case scenario, it would deserve trademark protections. We should change the tag(s). At this point, an action such as this appears/feels retaliatory... Buffs (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see c:COM:COA#Definition and representation. In one of the cases, it's impossible to see what representation was used. In this one, the representation is the same, but there is no evidence that the document is old (it seems to have been written after computers were invented). In all of the other cases, the representation is different. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• it's impossible to see what representation was used vs In all of the other cases, the representation is different They can't be both "different" in all cases and "impossible to see". I don't see a single instance where the logo ISN'T clearly visible. I literally gave you instances from 4 decades. Other readers are welcome to check for themselves.
• it seems to have been written after computers were invented. It's a history of the logo in question. It doesn't matter if it was written yesterday, 20 years ago, or 100 years ago. The question is whether it's accurate. They have no reason to lie about the history of their own logo (that I'm aware of). If you want other sources, here:
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]

Again, this feels very much like a serious stretch. There is no indication the design was created as a blazon. To make such a claim, you need to provide such evidence. Describing the symbolism of each component of the emblem is commonplace. That doesn't make it a blazon. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This uses the same representation. However, it appears to have been created after computers were invented, so it can't be very old.

This uses a different representation and appears to have been created on a computer, so apparently multiple representations have been used since the invention of computers.

This has a logo in the top left corner. It looks like the same representation, but it is blurry, so it is difficult to see. The web page was obviously created after the Internet was invented, so it can't be very old.

There is no indication the design was created as a blazon. To make such a claim, you need to provide such evidence. You are misunderstanding the burden of proof. You have to prove that this representation is old. As the only old documents you have shown use a different representation, or one too small to determine if it is the same or not, there is no evidence that the current representation is old. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you're just being obtuse. I provided 4 examples from 4 different decades that all show the exact same symbol (1938, 1924, 1911, 1906). They are not too small to tell. The history that the KoC uses...yes, the ones I point to are online for ease of reference! But that doesn't mean the symbol was "obviously created after the Internet". They've consistently used this logo for over 100 years. The ring from 1924 alone should be absolutely, crystal clear evidence that it is public domain. Even if you doubt it, the poster from 1938 has no copyright and I can find no copyrights registered, ergo, it is in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually bother looking at them, you will see that they all use different representations than the one used here, and therefore they are different works with their own copyright terms, separate from the copyright term of this representation of the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no reasoning with you on this and I am utterly perplexed as to your stubbornness on the subject. This is not a blazon and there is no indication that it is as such. You've just said "well maybe it is" without providing any sort of concrete proof other than "the description is kind of like that" (I'm paraphrasing from what I'm reading).

If you actually bother looking at them... Are you serious? Read WP:AGF and get back to me. Let's assume I've looked at the images in question.

But you know what, let's look at each and every one (this is absurd that I have to go to these lengths)

In what way is there any substantive change in these logos from the current logo?

Buffs (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 Buff's quite right in observing that the logos are substantively pretty much the same, hence the upload. The difference is really not so large as to necessitate a removal. GuardianH (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GuardianH. The only other differences I see from the others pointed out are very minor variations in color and resolution. None of those are sufficient to obtain a copyright. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.