Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:43, 7 December 2010

< December 3	December 5 >

December 4

File:Tamsin egerton photo 1.jpg

The user claims to have the copyright but the photo has a "celebs101" watermark on it. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not by the uploader. Reh man 13:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copule ord.png

obsolete, replaced by File:copule_ord.svg Zasf (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but some editors may prefer PNG over SVG. But I guess this is ok. Reh man 13:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg

also nominating:

File:2002 ROK naval action televised.jpg

Revised Fair Use Rationale will be drafted. The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

File:2009 ROK naval action televised.jpg

Revised Fair Use Rationale -- 2009 ROK naval action televised.jpg

File:2009 ROK naval action televised.jpg

The fair use rationale was re-drafted in response to constructive criticism:

Purpose

The image is placed in that section of the article discussing the naval clash in 2009, which is a subject of public interest. The significance of the image is to help the reader (a) to identify what the DPRK-ROK clash looked like, (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing description and critical commentary, and (c) to illustrate the 2009 event and its journalistic consequences in a way that words alone could not convey. The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

Replaceability

Because this is a published newspaper image (November 10, 2009) showing a concurrent Korean television broadcast of the ROK-DPRK clash on the same day in 2009, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary

Other information

The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

This is a published November 2009 image showing unidentified man watching a concurrent tv broadcast of the ROK-DPRK naval clash on the same day in 2009 — see Kwang-Tae Kim. "North, South Korea clash at sea before Obama visit," Journal News (US). November 10, 2009; and it is essentially a commentary describing (a) the communication of news and historical events via print and broadcast media and (b) the framing of news and historical narrative and meaning with repetition and media exposure.

In part, this image is also a published version of a faithful digitisation of a broadcast image capture from a television news story and of an televised historic image from the 2009 ROK-DPRK naval clash in the West Sea.

The published image of the man watching the broadcast event is itself the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role).

File:2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking televised.jpg

Revised Fair Use Rationale will be drafted. The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

File:2002 ROK naval action televised(2).jpg

Revised Fair Use Rationale will be drafted. The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

The article Korean maritime border incidents had four almost identical photographs added, showing people (from behind) watching footage of naval forces on televisions in public places during recent military crises. These are all doubly non-free: potentially non-free TV footage, and the non-free photographic work. The latter is from commercial news agency publications (AP) and as such a big no-no. It is entirely unclear what information these images are actually meant to convey: illustrate the ships shown on the screens? Illustrate the fact that ships were shown on TV? Illustrate the fact that people watch news in public places? The images are hardly particularly informative for any of these three purposes, and clearly replaceable with mere text for the latter two. NFC rationales added by uploader fail to clarify the purpose and consist largely of meaningless verbiage. In any case, four near-identical pics would be far too much even if a legitimate purpose was to be assumed for one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The diff above poses hypotheticals. At first, I didn't understand their function as rhetorical questions nor their illustrative message. As I returned to struggle with the words again and again, I began to understand. This helpful rhetorical strategy contrasts with the unhelpful straw man contrived by Nick-D below. --Tenmei (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of Fut.Perf.'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential. The strained argument demonstrates that neither Korean maritime border incidents nor the concise captions were examined. These mistaken hypotheticals are careless in the context created by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale. I hardly know where to begin. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. --Tenmei (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale was re-drafted in response to constructive criticism:

Revised Fair Use Rationale -- 1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg

File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg

Purpose

The image is placed in that section of the article discussing the naval clash in 1999, which is a subject of public interest. The significance of the image is to help the reader (a) to identify what the DPRK-ROK clash looked like, (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing description and critical commentary, and (c) to illustrate the 1999 event and its journalistic consequences in a way that words alone could not convey. The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

Replaceability

Because this is a published newspaper image (November 10, 2009) showing a concurrent Korean television re-broadcast of archival footage of the ROK-DPRK clash in 1999, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary

Other information

The file itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

This is a published November 2009 image showing unidentified man watching tv re-broadcast of archived footage from 1999 ROK-DPRK naval clash — see Kwang-Tae Kim. "North, South Korea clash at sea before Obama visit," Journal News (US). November 10, 2009. The image is essentially a commentary about (a) the communication of news and historical events via print and broadcast media and (b) the framing of news and historical narrative and meaning with repetition and media exposure.

In part, this image is also a published version of a faithful digitisation of a re-broadcast image capture from an archived television news story and of an televised historic image from the 1999 ROK-DPRK naval clash in the West Sea.

The published image of the man watching the re-broadcast event in the context of a subsequent clash is itself the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role). --Tenmei (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The challenged images above do each individually and as a group serve to support and illustrate the introductory paragraph in the Chronology section of Korean maritime border incidents.

The chronology of serial events is more than a list of discrete incidents. It is a cumulative narrative. The unfolding story is re-told and re-visited during the course of each subsequent clash between the naval forces of the DPKR and the ROK, reiterating, reinforcing and revisiting each incident in a troubling series. For those not individually embroiled in any of these clashes, each event was reported and experienced vicariously via the medium of television or the internet.

In the derisive context others have created in this venue, it is timely and meaningful to underscore the fact that the initial version of this paragraph was drafted with a clear edit summary:

diff 19:23, 2 December 2010 Tenmei (18,523 bytes) (→Chronology: explanation -- verified by cumulative captions of broadcast images added to this page)

If any part of the above were deemed to need further work, it can be edited in response to constructive critical comments. --Tenmei (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. These photos add nothing of any particular value to the articles as all they show is people watching what's probably stock TV footage rather than footage of the incidents themselves. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the diff above, the adverb clause or predicate clause is particularly unhelpful. The problem is distilled in words attributed to an American senator:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Nick-D's opinion is seen to have credibility because it is informed by experience and by a long history of contributions to Wikipedia over an extended period of years. This good judgment may be sufficient reason for the images to be removed from Korean maritime border incidents regardless of anything to do with the issues in this discussion thread.

OPINION

"These photos add nothing of any particular value to the articles

NOT FACT

... as all they show is people watching what's probably stock TV footage rather than footage of the incidents themselves."

However, the "because" part of this diff is a straw man. The word "probably" is pivotal. This clause is explicitly unsupported by anything posted in this thread, explicitly unlike anything written in the fair use rationales for each image, explicitly inconsistent with the captions published in the original sources.

This kind of small mistake does harm and it slows the development of our project. --Tenmei (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROK Yeonpyeong bombardment Nov2010.jpeg

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 Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free news image of a recent political/military event, used for purely illustrative purposes, no transformative value (e.g. analytical commentary on the image itself). Unclear copyright status, sourced only to an inofficial website that may well not be the true copyright owner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, better safe than sorry. Reh man 13:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of Fut.Perf.'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential. Mistaken hypotheticals are are careless. See File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg above If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be the same photo as the one used in this SMH article, where it is sourced to Associated Press. - Bilby (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source of the image clearly says "Free content" immediately underneath the title. Considering the source has been operating since 2005 it obviously is not disputed that the content there is free content, why must it be disputed here? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:49, 6 December 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.

File:2009 ROKNavyChamsuri North Korean ship.jpg

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 Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent military event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of Fut.Perf.'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential. Mistaken hypotheticals are are careless. See File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg above If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 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.

File:ROKNavy raising patrol boat 2002.jpg

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 Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent military event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of Fut.Perf.'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential. Mistaken hypotheticals are are careless. See File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg above If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 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.

File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg

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 as G12 by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent military event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of Fut.Perf.'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential. Mistaken hypotheticals are are careless. See File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg above If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei 00:57, 5 December 2010

Future Perfect at Sunrise -- The image of smoke rising over the island was a iconic feature of many news reports in November 2010. This is one such photo. For me, the image of smoke rising is indistinguishable from my impressions of an island I have not personally visited. These factors are explained when the file was uploaded:

Purpose.

The image is placed in that section of the article discussing the shelling of this island preparations, which is a subject of public interest. The significance of the image is to help the reader (a) to identify this military incident, (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the incident, and (c) to illustrate the incident in a way that words alone could not convey.

Replaceability.

Because this image involves an zone of military conflict from which civilians were evacuated, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary

Other information.

If there is something wrong or insufficient, what is it? Why?

These factors are significant and relevant. If you are saying that these sentences need to be incorporated into the fair use rationale, please explain where this additional material should be added. In the past, when I have added extra information, the words are not displayed.

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image of the smoke rising above the silhouette of Yeonpyeong Island after the North Korean artillery barrage in November 2010.
The image of the smoke plus the silhouette itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role). --Tenmei (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is used under the Fair Use rationale. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That statement is worthless as long as it doesn't demonstrate how all of the WP:NFCC are met by that rationale. Please note that since it's a commercial news agency picture, the prima facie assumption is that it breaks NFCC#2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. -- Please restate your response to Barts1a in different words. In this narrow context, the word "worthless" has meaning, but I don't understand it. While I do understand the words "prima facie assumption", it is not clear how the phrase is meaningful in this context. --Tenmei (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is that because it's from a commercial news agency, we must assume that by using the image we are infringing on the owner's commercial interests, in the absence of a very strong argument for "transformative use" in the sense of US fair use law. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- thank you for explaining "prima facie assumption." This is helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so far, until free image becomes available. Currently we don't have images directly associated with the bombardment except this one. Twilightchill t 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely irrelevant in the case of a commercial news agency picture. "It would be so nice to have an image of this event and we can't find any other" is not a valid rationale where NFCC#2 is violated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any disrespect "for commercial opportunities", nor "a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". NFCC#1 is here instead. Twilightchill t 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See arguably relevant discussion thread at Talk:Bombardment of Yeonpyeong#Smoke rising after artillery barrage. --Tenmei (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under WP:CSD F7 Non-free images or media from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately. As far as I remember, I was the one who transcribed the talkpage discussion into that sentence, and I'm damn fine sure this is the kind of thing that component of F7 is aimed at. Nothing in the article refers back to the photograph - it's only there for decorative purposes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:05, 6 December 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.

File:Oxfam protest G20 leaders.jpg

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent political event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one under F7 as well. This photograph is mentioned nowhere in the text of the article. Also, the conference was high security, but I'm damn fine sure Oxfam took their own photographs and might be prevailed upon to release one it its that important. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A free equivalent is almost certainly available. Colincbn (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama Inchon G-20 2010.jpg

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent political event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one under F7 as well. This photograph is mentioned nowhere in the text of the article. Also, what possible encyclopaedic value can a picture of Obama coming through a door have --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contextual significance is not established. Colincbn (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee preparations for G20 summit.jpg

File deleted - free version available, no reason to keep this one hanging around --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent political event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one under F7 as well. This photograph is mentioned nowhere in the text of the article. Also, does not add significantly to the understanding of anything, it's just a bunch of people milling about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replaceable. Specifically with this. Colincbn (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, done. Colincbn (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inchon G20 Civil Dialogue 2010.jpg

non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent political event; no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I can't parse the cognitive bias which frames this proposal. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no transformative value, not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one under F7 as well, and stop the uploader uploading any more non free images until they are able to recite the whole of WP:NFCC. Backwards. As just at the moment they seem to have no clue as to what it actually says. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already one free photo of this event and I don't see how this non-free photo adds to the article. If the uploader can explain the Contextual significance of the photo I may retract. Colincbn (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donovan Room 112.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twilightchill t 21:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No brainer. Colincbn (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Princess Akishino JSL.jpg

Non-free image of a person delivering a speech in sign language. No further analytical commentary on the picture; hence nothing that could not easily be replaced with a verbal description. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not merely a photograph of "a person delivering a speech". This prominent member of the Imperial family has studied Japanese sign language and interpreting. She is noteworthy for her ability to communicate directly with Deaf Japanese -- see 紀子さま、高校生手話コンテストで挨拶 (Princess Kiko at high school sign language speech contest sign 2009年8月29日, TBS ^{[dead link]}. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "no further analytical commentary on the picture"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple: if it is a noteworthy piece of information that an imperial princess has learned to speak JSL, then just say so in the text: "Princess so-and-so has studied JSL and has publicly delivered speeches in it." There is no visual information in the image that would be necessary to understand this fact, over and above what the text conveys. "Analytic commentary" would be if (just as a hypothetical silly example) there had been (sourceable) public discussion saying that the princess was signing JSL with a funny accent or with grammatical errors, and an image was needed to illustrate precisely how she signed a particular word. That sort of thing. The mere fact that she spoke it is not in need of illustration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a complaint about the "non-free media use rationale" in the summary section of the image page or is it a complaint about the caption of an image on an article page? or both? In other words, what needs to be changed? where? --Tenmei (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could answer this question only if I saw a realistic, legitimate fair-use purpose for this image. If there was such a purpose, then both the article text and the rationale would need to be adapted accordingly. About the NFC rationales: the first thing, here and elsewhere, is to cut out all the meaningless stereotyped verbiage, and instead just write down in simple, straightforward words why this individual image is needed and how it meets the criteria. But in this particular case I don't personally can't think of any convincing rationale, so there's basically nothing I could advise you to do about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique event in which Princess Akishino participated; and in this context, she signed a message to the deaf Japanese in her audience in 2005. The image of the Princess at a Deaf event plus the image of her gestures and hand signing plus her facial expression plus her black dress are the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role). --Tenmei (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This File for Deletion (FfD) has been cross-posted for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deaf#Japanese Sign Language and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Japanese Sign Language. --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei, you're not getting it. You don't even MENTION in the article that Princess Akishino speaks JSL, let alone the significance of this particular photograph of her communicating that way. It's just there for ornamentation. Go away and actually read all of WP:NFCC before you upload any more images from commercial sources, because I count six straight breaches of copyright just listed here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, delete this image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that there needs to be an explanation in the article why this particular speech is relevant to JSL as a whole, and that it is currently lacking such an explanation, I also know that this event was a major milestone in the battle to have sign language officially recognized by the Japanese government. A battle that is still going on today. Japan is not like the U.S., schools for the deaf have always pushed for forcing vocalization training and lip reading and have never taught in JSL and JSL is still not officially recognized by the federal government. In fact to this day there is only one school for the deaf in Japan that uses JSL, a private one. This event shook the deaf community in Japan to the core. Now, as I said this info should be added to the article, but first I will need to gather some refs, it should not take long.

Another point is that one goal of the free use policy is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." I believe that is exactly what this picture does. Also out of all ten criteria for use of non-free content I see none that this image fails to meet. Perhaps you could say the Contextual significance criteria. But considering my point above it is better to clarify the context than remove the image. Colincbn (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm afraid you misunderstand the concept of "contextual significance" as applied in the NFCC. You are saying that the event depicted in the image was highly significant. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the image is significant for making us understand the event. It is not. In fact, nothing of what you just said, about how important that event was, is actually conveyed by the image. All of it can easily be conveyed to the reader through text (as you just did, very eloquently). The image doesn't help in conveying that information at all; it just makes the message prettier. – In addition, from the text Tenmei added to the article in the meantime, I understand that she actually appears on similar occasions regularly. If that's the case, it would be possible to get a free image of a similar occasion in the future, which means we fail NFCC#1 (replaceability) in yet another way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that there is no rational to use non-free images. Ever. Because every image can be described in text. As far as other images of her using JSL yes they may be available, I currently have ten tabs open to articles about her (nine of them in Japanese which certainly does not make this any easier) many of which have photos. However determining the copyrights is not all that simple, and even if some are "Free" that does not mean we can use them here if they are copyrighted to not be available for commercial use. Uhg.

But my main question now is that some time while I was not looking WP seems to have decided that we are never allowed to use non-free images, unless the one specific criteria of the article being actually about the image is met. That is not at all what Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria says but it is what Wikipedia:CSD#Files says under F7. I think this underlying issue needs to be resolved before policy regarding images can be clarified. Colincbn (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you are misunderstanding. There is an image File:Syd Barrett Abbey Road 1975.jpg that is the best example I can think of. No amount of text could ever convey the shock of that image. Just saying he had got fat and his hair had fallen out, however eloquently, could never match the picture. But in the picture of the princess, the uploader has argued that we should use this one because it was on the imperial website, and that makes it unique. He doesn't want any old snap of the princess talking in JSL. The whole article doesn't have to be about the image, but the image must be the subject of sourced commentary. It's possible to find commentary about the pic of poor Syd Barrett, but the picture of the princess does not seem to have been particularly interesting, although the fact that she speaks JSL does get mentioned regularly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with EotR) No, that is not at all what I said. Not every image can be replaced by a text description. Not if the specific visual properties of the image are crucial for understanding the content of the article. In an article about Picasso, I need the visual presence of "Guernica", because if I don't see what it looks like, I cannot understand what's being said about the painter's style. Further above, I sketched out a hypothetical (though not quite serious) case how such visual detail might be relevant here. But as matters stand, that just isn't the case here. Nothing of what you said about the historic importance of the event hinges on the visual detail of what she looked like in that situation, let alone in this particular moment captured in this particular image. – About your search for free alternatives, I appreciate your effort in finding some, but please keep in mind that the operative criterion for NFCC is not whether a free replacement already exists, but whether it could be created in the future. By the way, all of this isn't new and nothing of it changed "while you weren't looking". These rules have been in place, unchanged, for ages. It's just that some people at different times and in different corners of the project have traditionally got away with handling them laxer than others elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the way I read F7 Syd might be ok if the photo itself is discussed by a cite-able news outlet but the Picasso shot is out. Unless the article (or section) was about that exact photo, not the subject of the photo. That is what I'm saying about how F7 does not jive with NFCC. And there is nothing in F7 that says there are exceptions for photos that add understanding to the article or convey the shock of seeing the actual image. Colincbn (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither of the two articles that use the Syd Barrett photo mention the photo itself in the articles, and therefore that image qualifies for speedy deletion according to F7. Colincbn (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a bit off-topic now, because these issues don't apply to the present deletion case, but in the case of the photo of a painting, we don't distinguish between the painting itself and a photograph of it, because a mere reproductive rendering of a 2D artwork doesn't create a new copyright of the photographer, so the photo as such never enters the equation. Your problem about CSD F7, as I tried to point out on the CSD talk page, is because that specific part of F7 only applies to a subset of non-free images, those from commercial news agencies. In those cases, the idea is that the problem of NFCC 2 is so severe that NFCC 8 needs to be handled a lot more restrictively than otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, part of my interpretation comes from the fact that it does not say a commercial news source under f7. It says a commercial source. I think you will agree that the wording should be changed if that is in fact the intent (I copied this on the CSD talk page as well).

However, that being the case as this did not come from a news source that particular criteria for deletion does not apply. To bring this back to Syd, if the significance of the event is irrelevant then what keeps us from deleting the pic? If it is just the impact of seeing the state he is in in the photo, I assure you the 135 million Japanese who find this woman very important were impacted by her first public use of a language used exclusively by a segment of their society usually regulated to second class citizen, some would even say sub-human, status. Now the significance of this might be lost on many non-Japanese, but to those unfamiliar with Pink Floyd that photo is just some fat guy. Colincbn (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are again talking about the impact of the event, not about the impact of any particular visual detail of what the image shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely symantec. The impact is of seeing her use a language that is by definition visual. You cant type sign language, you cant describe what her movements are and convey the same feeling as actually recognizing the signs involved (in the picture she is signing the word for student or "学生" by the way). So yes the visual aspect is entirely necessary. What "particular visual detail" is the picture of Syd needed to show, that he is fat. You can describe that in plain English pretty simply, in fact I just did. Colincbn (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not convinced of the necessity of the Syd picture, propose that one for deletion. I didn't bring that up as a positive example – I'm pretty indifferent about it, in fact. Again, about the princess, the fact that she is just signing a particular word is not in any way relevant for the content of the article. What the article needs to convey is not the "impact of seeing her" speak, it is the information that she spoke, and only that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Colincbn - you'll probably find the deletion discussion for Syd on the talkpage, if not it's in the archive somewhere. I'm repeating the conclusion it came to, not just off the top of my head. Also, although Syd's not free, copyright in the image belongs to Nick Mason, who has never made it available for sale although he put it in his autobiography. The princess copyright belongs to Asahi Shimbun (not the Imperial website - I have corrected that detail), so it falls into the category of images owned by commercial organisations who get a living making images available for sale, which is the actual showstopper for NFCC. Such images MUST be used transformatively, and the MINIMUM requirement is sourced commentary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that you have "Made your decision and you're sticking to it" regardless of what I say. I am not going to propose the Syd pic for several reasons. One is that would seem pretty "pointy", another is that I see the value in keeping both of them and the last is that due to the English-centric society on en.WP there is not a snowballs chance in hell that it would actually get deleted. Whereas deletion of a picture of a prominent figure from the non-English world garners almost no interest at all. However all the arguments to keep it are just as valid here. Also I was not the one to mention it, Elen did as an example of a photo to obviously keep.

As one last attempt to add some reason to this debate let me point out that the Imperial House Agency is not a commercial institution. It is a section of the government entirely funded by taxes. And for the record I feel that I have more than adequately explained how this pic fits all ten criteria for inclusion of non-free images and why F7 does not apply (not a commercial entity). As a user of JSL and a resident of Japan I feel the specific "contextual significance" of seeing the mother of the future Japanese Emperor actually using JSL for the first time in public is an adequate reason for this image to pass #8 of the NFCC. Colincbn (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, very interesting. Now the copyright notice at the bottom of the page claims "Copyright © The Imperial Household Agency. All Right [sic] Reserved". So the caption "Photo:The Asahi Shimbun" could just be attribution. I'm not sure how Japanese copyright laws deal with images of the Royal Family. If the copyright is help by the newspaper than yes obviously F7 applies and the image should be deleted. Colincbn (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way there was an edit conflict and I did not see Elen's post above until after I had responded to Future Perfect's post. I am not sure at this point who holds the copyright to the image, if it is the IHA then I still say keep, if it is the Asahi Shinbun then I would say delete. Colincbn (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth a japanese speaker checking the Asahi Shimbun site to see if they have it as a commercial photo. Maybe under japanese law all pics of the royal family belong to the Imperial Household. You're right, if copyright does belong to them, are they a commercial agency who sells images for profit, or is their role only to control images of the royals? Also if Asahi Shimbun took the piccy, they may have written copy at some point, that might be of use in the article, and might even mention the picture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Re-enactment parade 1860-2010.jpg

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 Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of news agency footage of a recent event, not object of analytic commentary; purely decorative illustration Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the digitized image illustrates the event's commemorative message in a way that words alone could not convey. If the usefulness and value of this image is not made sufficiently clear by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale, the text can be edited. I don't understand how to construe nor how to respond to Fut.Perf.'s explicit criticism -- "not the object of analytical commentary"? --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I know you're not supposed to delete an image while there is a discussion going on, but this one's just taking the piss, so I have done. It's a public parade - I can see people in the crowd taking pictures. The argument that the file containing the tv company logo is more 'authentic' than one snapped from the crowd is totally bogus. There is no way this image is not replaceable by a free version. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquicentennial of Japanese Embassy to the United States

Elen of the Roads -- Please retract the descriptive phrase "totally bogus." The phrase implies fraud or deception or some kind of trickster behaviour -- none of which are applicable in this image from a non-controversial article about a non-controversial subject. Based solely on the information available for me to read, the sentences in the "fair use rationale" were reasonable, conventional, appropriate -- wrong, as it turns out, but surely straightforward.

In a collaborative editing context, you need to recall that not everyone has had your specific range of experience. If I had known better, I would not have re-written the description in a different way. How else am I to learn if not by asking questions when a problem is pointed out? If Future Perfect had responded to my repeated requests for an explanation, this would have developed differently; but it did not.

My uploading of this file and my effort to comply with all rules and procedures does not deserve derision nor contempt. It does deserve an investment of time in explaining so that I can do better in the future -- especially when, as here, I ask in a reasonable manner for that explanation.

Who's kidding who? Think about it.

This is not an instance in which anyone needs to assume good faith -- rather, my good faith is demonstrated, specific, noteworthy.

On the other hand, this sentence was welcome and helpful.

"It's a public parade - I can see people in the crowd taking pictures."

This comment about a single sentence tells me that looking for people with cameras in a crowd is a factor to be considered. I will bear this question in mind in future. Do you see the difference? Maybe this particular sentence was intended as sarcasm or something else, but I only have the words to read. I construed the sentence in terms of what I can guess about what I don't know. Thank you for the helpful sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC

Tenmei, you write very good English, therefore I assume you have no difficulty in reading English. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Non-free content? In particular, have you ever read principle 1 - replaceability? What do you think it says? You asked me on your talkpage to reinstate the image so you could 'tweak' it. In what way were you going to tweak a copyright image that you were intending to use in breach of copyright, that would make it OK to use? I think I'd like to understand that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 6 December 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.

File:Monster Energy Drink.jpg

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 Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LQ, CV - A photo that's so heavily and poorly edited that its primary focus is the copyrighted logo on the can, and that purpose is better achieved by an existing non-free logo image, File:Monster energy drink feature.jpg. Mosmof (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof, stop opening multiple requests and reviews. You're well aware that variants of this image are already being discussed, based on the deletion review here we're waiting for a consensus after the dispute was referred to Commons. See the Commons page, and try to contain your drive for deletion to only one discussion. That is where the consensus is going to take place for this image, and variant images regarding the big "M" dispute. I suggest you close this request. Editor182 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you're calling me "disruptive", even though you were the one who uploaded this image after a similar images with the same exact license issue were deleted. It doesn't help that you have a habit of uploading an identical image on Commons when its license is questioned on English Wiki and vice versa. If you stopped doing that, then you wouldn't have to worry about so many deletion discussions. Also, you keep using that word "consensus", but I do not think it means what you think it means. --Mosmof (talk) 05:45, 5 December 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.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 *The article [[Korean maritime border incidents]] had four almost identical photographs added, showing people (from behind) watching footage of naval forces on televisions in public places during recent military crises. These are all doubly non-free: potentially non-free TV footage, and the non-free photographic work. The latter is from commercial news agency publications (AP) and as such a big no-no. It is entirely unclear what information these images are actually meant to convey: illustrate the ships shown on the screens? Illustrate the fact that ships were shown on TV? Illustrate the fact that people watch news in public places? The images are hardly particularly informative for any of these three purposes, and clearly replaceable with mere text for the latter two. NFC rationales added by uploader fail to clarify the purpose and consist largely of meaningless verbiage. In any case, four near-identical pics would be far too much even if a legitimate purpose was to be assumed for one. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
+::'''Comment''' The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_December_4&diff=400471957&oldid=400468843   diff above] poses [[Thought experiment|hypotheticals]].  At first, I didn't understand their function as [[rhetorical question]]s nor their illustrative message.  As I returned to struggle with the words again and again, I began to understand.  This helpful rhetorical strategy contrasts with the unhelpful [[straw man]] contrived by [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] below. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''', per nom. [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' In order to understand the signficance of the image, the description is presumably helpful; but in the context of  [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]]'s hypotheticals, it becomes essential.  The strained argument demonstrates that neither [[Korean maritime border incidents]] nor the concise captions were examined.  These mistaken hypotheticals are careless in the context created by the sentences which explain the non-free rationale.  I hardly know where to begin.  I can't parse the [[cognitive bias]] which [[Framing (social sciences)|frames]] this proposal. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 *'''Delete all''' per nom. These photos add nothing of any particular value to the articles as all they show is people watching what's probably stock TV footage rather than footage of the incidents themselves. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+::'''Comment''' In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_December_4&diff=400831258&oldid=400818848  diff above], the [[adverb clause]] or [[predicate (grammar)|predicate clause]] is particularly unhelpful.  The problem is distilled in words attributed to an American senator:
+::<center> [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan&oldid=1127234   "'''Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts'''."]</center>
+::[[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]]'s opinion is seen to have credibility because it is informed by experience and by a long history of contributions to Wikipedia over an extended period of years.  This good judgment may be sufficient reason for the images to be removed from [[Korean maritime border incidents]] regardless of anything to do with the issues in this discussion thread.
+{{col-begin}}
+{{col-2}}
+:::<u>OPINION</u>
+:::"These photos add nothing of any particular value to the articles
+{{col-2}}
+::<u>NOT FACT</u>
+::... as all they show is people watching what's probably stock TV footage rather than footage of the incidents themselves."
+{{col-end}}
+::However, the "because" part of this diff is a [[straw man]].  The word "probably" is pivotal. This clause is explicitly unsupported by anything posted in this thread, explicitly unlike anything written in the fair use rationales for each image, explicitly inconsistent with the captions published in the original sources.<p>This kind of small mistake does harm and it slows the development of our project. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:ROK Yeonpyeong bombardment Nov2010.jpeg]]====