This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed 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}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2025 January 11}} 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=2025 January 11}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
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}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
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.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
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.
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука1316:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The digital/streaming release's cover art is more provocative and more revealing than the CD/vinyl one. Omit this (CD/vinyl) cover art, and you'd be left with the more provocative and revealing cover art. Furthermore, neither CD nor vinyl is a dead format (yet), despite their lack of prominence compared to their own heydays.
Also, it's not like Rebel Heart, whose main artwork shows the musician's/artist's face wrapped in wires and is less provocative and revealing than this (other) album's. Well, it's not like Love for Sale (Boney M. album) either, which has critical commentary. I even nominated its alternative cover to FFD just once, and the result was "kept". Nonetheless, even artworks lacking critical commentary may still be contextually significant to the album and its releases/editions. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear copyright status. This has been tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, which implies that it was first published in the United States. However, it has also been tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} with an expiration based on Mexican copyright law, which implies that it was first published in Mexico. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kahlo was living in the U.S. at the time that the self-portait was made. If we consider this as publishing without copyright notice, then it is in the Public Domain. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless information can be found about the details of first publication. The source country is (generally) where the work was first published, not where the work was created. Wikiacc (¶) 00:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One cover is enough for demonstration (WP:NFCC#3). Moreover, to demonstrate the appearance, it is enough to take any simple cover and replace the company logo with a white oval - the encyclopedic significance of the image will not suffer from this (WP:FREER). Image is not the object of sourced commentary (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука1312:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems useful to me to demonstrate the degree of variation vs degree of consistency across the scheme. The rightmost cover is an example of the Marber Grid, noted later in the article. Caption could be made more informative to highlight this. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This logo does not meet the Threshold of Originality. The fleur-de-lis is ineligible for copyright based on the fact that it is too simple of a shape and older than the city of New Orleans. The stylized version is not complicated enough to merit copyright, in my opinion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука1306:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Iruka13 has absolutely no understanding of how Wikipedia works. There is a consensus that in articles about music singles it is acceptable to use the cover art for each version.--Sanslogique (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such link (or maybe there is), because the consensus is based on common usage practices. A lot of articles use multiple images of singles, if that doesn't suit you, you can start a discussion about it so that only one remains, at the top of the page.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I agree that you should start a discussion about removing single covers from other articles if you are not satisfied with the current consensus. Otherwise, I will regard your edits as vandalism.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Two versions became hits in the same year, 1961. One topped in two countries; this (other) topped in two other countries. Hard to tell which version is more prominent than the other. Oh, and an amount of sentences isn't a sufficient indicator/measurement of "contextual significance". Rather two versions were equally and locally successful, and neither is more prominent than the other, so deleting this cover art and keeping the other wouldn't be wise, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete File:AmityUni-logo.png: This is a free-use image, limited to 100,000 dots. In this version, nearly the entire image (aside from some whitespace) is dedicated to displaying the seal. In contrast, the alternative version uses less than 30% of the image for the seal, with the remainder duplicating the text "Amity University," which is already present on the seal itself. Muhandes (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).
It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three images (since the one directly below is deleted). They all serve different purposes: (1) cover, (2) gameplay, and (3) this specific image which is the only item to provide a comparative commentary between novel and game, meeting the non-free content criteria. And should therefore be kept. And what you say is not a sufficient argument otherwise, as the two other images do not share this function. --Cold Season (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука1300:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.
Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.
The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.
Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.
Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided this because I saw several similar images in your contribution - unlike this one, the source of those images is only other images, although the file description says that you are their author. And also because of the lack of metadata. And, of course, when comparing the images as such.
Please provide a link to the discussion in which the image was accepted.
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦»04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦»04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦»04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦»04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the visual design of box set in the article is not described in terms of reliable sources, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). In addition, this three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. — Ирука1317:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photograph of the box set is clearly done by the publisher that owns the copyright to the box set and cover art (as part of the promotional material to send out the box art), so there is not a separate copyright, so the FREER argument falls apart. Once you clear that, then the other arguments for delete fall apart - the 3d photograph will have the same copyright burden as the 2d cover. Masem (t) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this image is indeed made by the copyright holder, according to WP:NFC#UUI#16 we should not use it.
From your answer I still don't understand why we need to use a 3D image of the box set and its contents if a 2D image of the front of the box is sufficient for identification. — Ирука1318:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source page does not actually say if it was published in 1929 or not, so it could still be copyrighted. Also, as the source is the BBC, the photo, if published, could have been published first in the UK, in which case it would at best be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} instead of {{PD-US}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This short sound clip of We Built This City is a portion of the song's refrain. It meets the contextual significance criterion defined in WP:NFC#CS because it allows the reader to identify the song that is subject of discussion in the article. Literally, the title of the song, We Built This City, is sung throughout the clip. It is not simply a song demonstration — it is a portion of the song that defines the work. - tucoxn\talk13:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously identified as "free" without any justification; 1933 films don't become PD in the US until 2029. Currently used only in a cast list, and thus it does not meet the non-free criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
De-PRODding rationale was this: harmless; useful for identification; and usefully gives a sense of the feel of the series. However, usefulness is something to be careful to argue about. So is "harmless". Neither usefulness nor harmlessness is an excuse for the DVD covers' potential failure to comply with NFCC. Sure, there are actors in the covers, but I don't see how they add anything to understanding, i.e. contextually signify, the short-lived TV parodical series. Also, treating individual seasons/series as if they are individually notable may insufficently justify use of the DVD covers... unless we wanna be consistent with other articles using DVD covers? So far as I can see, very few or no articles use DVD covers as separate from title cards or title logos for TV series articles. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the original album cover before it got reissued, so I think it can be kept on the page. I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. Statik N (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~I don't see why it should be deleted. It does show more of the artwork and how the song titles are written. Removing it is unnecessary. Statik N (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The discussion of the back cover is limited to a description of the text style, cited to some kind of filing from a court case (???). The image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the unreplaceable criteria. The specific NZLAV used in the siege is not required understanding and I've replaced the image in the article with a free version of an NZLAV. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this logo is solely for the 2024 season rather than being a generic logo for any season sponsored by Cognizant- if Cognizant sponsor again in 2025, then this same logo could and probably would be used. As such, it's a too generic logo that fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Can be replaced with a free photo (WP:NFCC#1) as the design of an iPhone is utilitarian and not copyrightable. The only remaining copyrightable portion is the wallpaper, which is not necessary for the reader's understanding and can be omitted from such a photo (WP:NFCC#8). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor of Sunday Express who wrote the campaign article opposing The Well of Loneliness may have been identified to be the late James Douglas, who died in 1940, about eighty-five years ago (source 1,source 2). Per UK and EU laws, a work has been copyrighted for author's lifetime and then seventy years after that. Fourteen years already passed since expiration of Douglas's works, so an image depicting the article should be good to transfer. The US copyright of the article must've expired for at least one year. George Ho (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the text was written by someone who died in 1940, then the text is in the public domain in the UK. What about the photo? There is an image caption, but I can't read the text, so I don't know if the image caption contains the name of the photographer or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two other versions of the Network Railcard, which are PD due to not meeting threshold of originality, appear on this page, therefore there is no need for a non-free one as well. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Logo does not appear to be contemporaneous with 1929 playoffs. Orange and black NHL logo was only introduced in 1946; between graphic design, orange logo, and use of five colours, I feel like this dates closer to the 1990s/2000s (with a retro bear for good measure). As such, it doesn't meet the FU criteria for the article it's used in. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph, rather than scan. There is no indication that the photograph of the book was released under a free license; a mechanical scan would not attract its own copyright, but this might. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a screenshot from a media report being used to illustrate an event. It fails NFCC #1 because there are many things it could potentially be replaced with, and also fails the specific WP:PRESSPHOTO restriction. TEMPO156 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===January 11===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
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.
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+3%23File%3AAndr%C3%A9+Derain%2C+1907+%28Automne%29%2C+Nu+debout%2C+limestone%2C+95+x+33+x+17+cm%2C+Mus%C3%A9e+National+d%26%2339%3BArt+Moderne.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+2%23File%3AZara+Larsson+-+VENUS+%28Vinyl+Cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+8%23File%3AStaind+-+Tormented+%28back+cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+10%23File%3ANetwork+Railcard+%282017%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
