Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 6
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is used in Ken Grimwood article "to illustrate the person(s), product, event, or subject in question" according to the boilerplate rationale. But there is a second non-free image in that article which illustrates the subject. It's not obvious that this image meets WP:NFCC#3a in that one non-free image would suffice or WP:NFCC#8 as the other image the same subject just as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - scan of a copyrighted book claimed as freely licenced ? No permission nor proof for this - Peripitus (Talk) 10:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Harmonic series with Helmholtz-Ellis JI pitch notation.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 000masa000 (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know where the CV is coming from, but it does appear both useful, encyclopedic, and and of a reasonable resolution. As far as I can tell, OR isn't a reason to delete a free image that is likely to be useful. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 due to failure to add substantially to readers' understanding of the article. No critical commentary on the image present in the article. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no crit. comm. feydey (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Causinacommotionvideolive.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Resbusha (notify | contribs).
- non-free image that adds little or nothing to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The main reasoning behind those who wish to keep the image, even though there is an alternative free one, is that this one is different and therefore not equivalent. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaceable non-free image (WP:NFCC#1). The image is used to identify the character, but File:Eleventh Doctor.jpg fulfills this purpose adequately. An image of the actor in what is apparently the more usual suit is not required as a textual description of the suit is adequate. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Keep per extensive talkpage discussion and this ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would point out that the "extensive talkpage discussion" leans strongly towards deleting the image. A main argument in favour of keeping it, that the replacement is poorer quality, has been rejected on numerous occasions in relation to other images — a bad free image is preferable to a good non-free image. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a bad free image is preferable to a good non-free image, do you suggest replacing the picture on Ninth Doctor with this one? It's very bad, it doesn't adequately represent the subject (as any number of reliable sources will confirm) but it's a free image nonetheless. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would point out that the "extensive talkpage discussion" leans strongly towards deleting the image. A main argument in favour of keeping it, that the replacement is poorer quality, has been rejected on numerous occasions in relation to other images — a bad free image is preferable to a good non-free image. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The non-free image claimed as fair-use can be replaced by an available alternative free-use image. (WP:NFCC#1) Cirt (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This non-free image is intended to capture every aspect of the 11th Doctor, including his attire, which is discussed in the article. As with so many thing, a textual description falls short of this goal, and the replacement image does not contain the attire at all; just the face. Free replacement images are preferred, but only when they can "adequately" replace the non-free one. In this case, that is certainly not true. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I think our policies would probably lean toward deleting this as there is another image and the costume isn't hugely "distinctive". That said, given the nature of the character (11 actors, all with a different look and personality) I think we should keep this as the "look" of the character is actually important to understanding the character and I don't think words can replace the picture. Admittedly, this may be a case of "ILIKEIT". In any case, if it does get deleted, we really need a better picture than the proffered alternative. Hobit (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for the natural resolution of the RfC. Sceptre (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think there are some overly zealous eager beavers on here. If the BBC or whoever the appropriate controlling authority is raises a fuss, then it can be deleted. Otherwise, it seems a reasonable picture to use. Certainly, it is better than what was here previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.171.85 (talk • contribs)
- The suggestion that we should use copyrighted material until someone cares has been soundly rejected in the past; see also Commons:COM:PRP. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For the reasons outlined by Edokter. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing NFCC#1. I don't need to see a man wearing a tweed jacket and dicky bow. I can be shown a picture of the man wearing other clothes, told what he was wearing and......imagination fills the gap, just like reading one of them book things (the ones without pictures) really. The arguments that without a picture of him wearing the correct shirt, jacket etc. then reader's understanding would substantially damaged are weak - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The actor in character is not substantially different enough from the appearance of the actor to warrant a FU image. ÷seresin 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: remove from all uses except characters of Final Fantasy VI. Note that in this closure I am not assessing it's appropriateness for that article, as the goalposts were moved during the game - Peripitus (Talk) 10:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:FFVI characters on airship.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZeWrestler (notify | contribs).
- I nominated this as a replaceable fair-use, but User:Fastily removed the tag claiming it is unlikely a free version exists. However, the image is of a copyrighted video game and is used only in sprite sheet and tile-based video game, where a screenshot from a freely-licensed game (which exists or could be created) would suffice. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a fair use statement where it probably is an acceptable fair use image [1] but isn't used there. If it were added back to the article (where it would be helpful) would that solve the issue? Hobit (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I've returned it to that article. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Stifle brings up a valid point - a free video game would suffice. How could I have missed that? :( hmmm.... -FASTILY (TALK) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For some of the articles the picture is in, a game with a free license would suffice. However, for the Characters of Final Fantasy VI article, the license for that game is not free, and therefore a free license version would most likely not exist unless the copyright holder specifically releases one. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The image's usage in Characters of Final Fantasy VI doesn't add anything to the article as it doesn't show what the characters really look like. The artwork created by Final Fantasy VI's character designer Yoshitaka Amano depicts the characters' intended appearance, while the sprites only show how they look like in-game. The Prince (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way they looked in the game is encyclopedic and in itself adds value. The screenshot shows how the characters looked like in the game as people playing the game saw them. Having nothing in this article would be a shame. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the sprites that people actually saw are more important than an intended appearance. In anycase, those aren't in the article either last I checked. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for characters of Final Fantasy VI, there is no free equivalent, and both Amano's concept art and the in-game sprites are probably the subject of extensive critical commentary. However IMO the fair use rationales for tile-based game and sprite sheet are bogus. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: When this nomination was made, the image was not used in characters of Final Fantasy VI; it was added at 05:05 on 7 January. The closing admin is requested to consider this in closing the discussion, and to consider a closure of the form "keep, but remove from..." Stifle (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment didn't know that was considered a reasonable outcome from FfD. That said, such a result is certainly appropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea whether that's a valid FFD outcome, but if it isn't, it should be. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that's getting too much into editorial issues and if the image is here at all, discussion about where it can be should largely be local to that article. In this case, it's pretty obvious, but the precedent bothers me. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea whether that's a valid FFD outcome, but if it isn't, it should be. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment didn't know that was considered a reasonable outcome from FfD. That said, such a result is certainly appropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FFVI_characters_on_airship.png#Rationale_for_the_fair_use_of_this_image_in_the_article_Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VI:){kind=link}
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 10:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Australian House of Representatives Ballot Paper.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jarryd Moore (notify | contribs).
- Not necessary for readers to understand the article Australian electoral system, and insofar as it is necessary, it is replaceable by a generic ballot paper which could be created and released as a free image. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the rationale, which addresses both of these points. The section of the article describes how the voting system is sufficiently pernickety that the parties issue How-to-vote cards (with great success) to make sure votes do not become "informal" (i.e. unacceptably filled out). Given that background, it is useful for reader understanding to show exactly what the voters are confronted with. And it is appropriate to show a real specimen ballot paper, not some fake we've cooked up ourselves. As there is no possible commercial damage to the Australian state in our showing this (indeed any unaltered use is expressly permitted), it is highly appropriate fair use.
- In the near future, I also intend to press for restoration of the how-to-vote-card image which originally also accompanied this, which was speedily deleted by User:Fastily despite a reasoned "hold-on" request, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation as to why. Unfortunately Fastily wasn't much available before Christmas, so I was leaving off DRVing this until I had more time in the new year. (DRV now filed). The two images together substantially reinforce each other, and taken together add substantially to knowledge of the Australian electoral system, and how the parties adapt some of their campaigning methods to it. Jheald (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The principal argument "it is appropriate to show a real speciment ballot paper" is no more than a proof by assertion. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JHeald. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per other keeps. No free replacement is possible. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep No free replacement, certainly improves my understanding. Seems to meet all relevant criteria. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Improves article, and no free replacement available. The Electoral Act is pretty specific on how a ballot paper should look; if we don't follow their guide it is not useful and if we do, we're probably breaching Crown copyright. Using the official "specimen" paper is a way around this problem, and I largely agree with Jheald's well thought out observations. Orderinchaos 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Important for understanding content; no free replacement possible. Rebecca (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is very important for illustrating descriptions of Australia's preferential voting sytem. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unconvinced that a generic preferential voting ballot would be inferior. The only need for this illustration is to understand the actual schematics of the ballot's design, which would be acceptably illustrated by a free diagram. Lack of a FU image must be significantly detrimental to understanding; not seeing an actual ballot does not satisfy this criterion. ÷seresin 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ainouta genteiban.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Asuperrandomuser (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image that is similar to the other one in the same article. The small differences (she is looking from/to the opposite side) can be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text) this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need to have two non-free images (even though they are from different album covers) in the article absent critical commentary. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DElete as failing NFCC#8 in that the image does not significantly add to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Invasion of the Bane.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfxprefects (notify | contribs).
- This file carried the note, "Replaceability: Easily replaceable," and was tagged for deletion accordingly. It was changed with no explanation. I think that it is easily replaceable, it simply shows a group of people doing very little, and nothing related (certainly nothing visually related) to the plot of the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not replaceable by a free image (or at least I don't see how), sole image in article. Perhaps replaceable by text, but I don't see how. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it add to the article? It's some people sitting round a table. It's replaceable by free content (ie. text): "At the end of the episode, the characters sit round a table in the dark..." ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it it's an attempt to show the atmosphere of the "family" post-adoption. I don't know that I find it succeeds or not and could certainly use some commentary. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it add to the article? It's some people sitting round a table. It's replaceable by free content (ie. text): "At the end of the episode, the characters sit round a table in the dark..." ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Replacable or not, the image adds nothing to the article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edokter. Rettetast (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to meet the fair use criteria. And it does seem to express the idea of family that was created between Luke and Sarah Jane at the end of this episode. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Eurobell.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Renamed user 1253 (notify | contribs).
- OR, uploader has tagged image as copyright owner, but the image is of a logo and this is unlikely. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wingman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cloudreaver (notify | contribs).
- The wingman file can easily replaced with a free file, such as File:Two F-22A Raptor in column flight - (Noise reduced).jpg. This is unneeded as it is easily replaceable by the aforementioned DOD file. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly replaceable in the context in which it is currently used. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.