Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:11, 25 August 2012

< August 20	August 22 >

August 21

File:Jup ganymede comp.png

described as "Image on commons as Image:Ganymede, moon of Jupiter, NASA.jpg in better quality. Links to image repaired." Bulwersator (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally cropped this image. I'm going to suggest keep because it's a different view from the replacement, but I'm not strongly opposed to deleting if there really is no use for this. —siro χ o 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: plainly obsolete, low-quality, and orphaned. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Move to commons clearly a different view from the one on Commons, even if you rotate the image. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nepenthes gracillima distribution.png

Unused distribution map without any sources for distribution of this plant. Bulwersator (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quinn James Season 9.png

Orphaned and redundant: alternative exists in another format: File:Shantel Van Santen as Quinn James.jpg. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CDU(Ost).gif

Lower resolution and quality than http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_der_CDU_%28Ost%29.svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, considering that the commons file might get deleted (logo). --Soman (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And see the stamp discussions on Commons where it is suggested that the mentioned copyright law section (§ 5 Abs. 1) only applies to text. It is very possible that most or all images under § 5 Abs. 1 claims will be deleted from Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rome 2004 Olympic bid logo.png

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed from gallery. Now displayed in the same way as similar articles. Felipe Menegaz 10:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a gallery, although the syntax differs a little. Besides, the logo isn't discussed critically, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comprehensive list added to the article. This is a historical logo and increase readers' understanding of the topic. It does not limit the commercial ability of the copyright owners in any possible way, since it is a logo of a defunct organization, and Wikipedia would only lose with its deletion. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NFTABLE since it is used in a table. And it isn't critically discussed either, thus failing WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the logos. For this kind of article, table lists (instead of thumbnail images, which in most cases end up in section breaks) facilitate comparison between the subjects. Felipe Menegaz 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You have now demonstrated that these images also fail WP:NFCC#1, since you have successfully been able to replace them by text. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say... One picture is worth a thousand words. But if you're saying that a description of a logo can replace it, you better get Category:All non-free logos deleted. Felipe Menegaz 21:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, WP:NFCC#1 refers to replaceability by another [free] file, not by text. Felipe Menegaz 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says "free content" and "free material". Nowhere does it say that this content or material has to be a file. Text is just as fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, logo descriptions does not characterize free content replaceability. Felipe Menegaz 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed from gallery. Now displayed in the same way as similar articles. Felipe Menegaz 10:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a gallery, although the syntax differs a little. Besides, the logo isn't discussed critically, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comprehensive list added to the article. This is a historical logo and increase readers' understanding of the topic. It does not limit the commercial ability of the copyright owners in any possible way, since it is a logo of a defunct organization, and Wikipedia would only lose with its deletion. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NFTABLE since it is used in a table. And it isn't critically discussed either, thus failing WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the logos. For this kind of article, table lists (instead of thumbnail images, which in most cases end up in section breaks) facilitate comparison between the subjects. Felipe Menegaz 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed from gallery. Now displayed in the same way as similar articles. Felipe Menegaz 10:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a gallery, although the syntax differs a little. Besides, the logo isn't discussed critically, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comprehensive list added to the article. This is a historical logo and increase readers' understanding of the topic. It does not limit the commercial ability of the copyright owners in any possible way, since it is a logo of a defunct organization, and Wikipedia would only lose with its deletion. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NFTABLE since it is used in a table. And it isn't critically discussed either, thus failing WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the logos. For this kind of article, table lists (instead of thumbnail images, which in most cases end up in section breaks) facilitate comparison between the subjects. Felipe Menegaz 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buenos Aires 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed from gallery. Now displayed in the same way as similar articles. Felipe Menegaz 10:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a gallery, although the syntax differs a little. Besides, the logo isn't discussed critically, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comprehensive list added to the article. This is a historical logo and increase readers' understanding of the topic. It does not limit the commercial ability of the copyright owners in any possible way, since it is a logo of a defunct organization, and Wikipedia would only lose with its deletion. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the logos. For this kind of article, table lists (instead of thumbnail images, which in most cases end up in section breaks) facilitate comparison between the subjects. Felipe Menegaz 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ranjit Barthakur.pdf

Out of scope. Also from "our website", so no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - wikipedia is not a resume/advertising hosting site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nepenthes dubia distribution.png

This is supposed to be distribution map of Nepenthes dubia but I see no marked distribution. Unused file. Bulwersator (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cassandra fox.jpg

Orphaned and the fair use rationale is for the article "Facebook". Honestly I don't see how it could possibly meet WP:NFCC#8 in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gggbrihannadeluxeedition.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different image: File:Gggbrihanna.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an official alternative cover of the album and it looks very different to the original one. Ilikeriri (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libera christmas deluxe.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different image: File:Basic album cover 275 275 80 c1.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I suggest Keep. this is the cover for a new (repackaged) version of the same album. 21 August 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitori12 (talk • contribs)

File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

This seems to be an unsettled {{subst:rfu}} case. I am bringing it to WP:FFD to have it settled. On 12 August 2012, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise tagged it with {{subst:rfu}}. User:DMacks later added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Best I can tell, Red Dragon (spacecraft) doesn't actually exist yet, so I don't expect a free image could be made for that vehicle that would represent it well. I pinged FutPerf (who added original di tag) a few days ago and got no response.}} Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 It says that NASA is involved in the Red Dragon (spacecraft). NASA images are in the public domain. Are there any NASA images of the spacecraft? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 A spacecraft is basically a utilitarian object. Utilitarian objects are in the public domain in the United States. Wouldn't it be possible to make your own 3D model of the spacecraft? Or would you need access to a photo of the spacecraft or even access to a real spacecraft in order to make your own 3D model? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could probably make a line drawing of it but since the DragonRider design (which is what Red Dragon is based off of) isn't finalized, I would recommend we hold off on that for now.--Craigboy (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to fight this deletion nomination that hard because there's some inaccuracies to the image, like how there's a docking mechanism that wouldn't be on the Red Dragon variant. Also since the DragonRider design isn't finalized yet, we don't know what the Red Dragon will look like.--Craigboy (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainties about the eventual embodiment of the subject and a general lack (as far as I can tell) of published blueprints of the current proposal (in order to build our own model) are the core of my non-replaceability argument at this point in the development of it. If someone finds a NASA image now or in the future (Question 1), or SpaceX makes a more concrete (or more in line with later proposals) data available in order to create a free model from scratch (Question 2), this one here becomes replaceable. But if there aren't extensive specific details of the utilitarian form of the object available, I think we're stuck using their creative interpretation of exactly what they envision. If this image is the main source of information they provide and it's non-free (I'm not sure about how "purely utilitarian" this thing is), anyone else's re-creation based substantially on it is a derivative work and therefore non-free. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The above makes sense to me. There was a similar case yesterday, involving File:Opel-Adam 3trims 279642.jpg. When I saw the image, I thought "modern car → replaceable" and missed that the car model doesn't exist yet. When this was pointed out to me, I removed my {{subst:rfu}} tagging, since I couldn't find a way to create a free replacement. You may wish to read the discussion on the file talk page about this matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PinkFloyd MastersofRock.jpg

Superfluous (WP:NFCC#3a) to File:TheBestofthePinkFloyd.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - completely different design to the alternative cover. When I uploaded it, just that fact was enough to meet NFCC. However, this could easily have critical commentary written on it to pass NFCC with flying colours; a black and white variation shows up in the DSotM sleeve as well. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One image is enough to identify this product. There is no need for two. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cover does more than identify the product; in many cases it is a part of the product and has come to be as or more famous than the product itself. Also not according to our precedent - as long as alternative covers are distinctive enough and critical commentary addressed the different covers. Also, see Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. Either way, you're disputing the fair use rationale and so these should have been nominated at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, where editors who specifically deal with the free-content criteria would be more likely to respond. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That RfC discussed whether articles are allowed to have an image or if they can't have any image at all. Here we have a different situation: the article has 2 non-free images, but I think that only one would be enough. Besides, the RfC doesn't seem to discuss WP:NFCC#3a at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This album cover has no particular significance in the history of the band (nor indeed anything else). It reuses a band photo from elsewhere, and the band most likely had no involvement whatsoever in its use in this content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help readers understand the topic (it's just a plain image of two men looking into the distance!)
It can easily be conveyed in words alone
We have free images of these actors (one is already used in the article), and since this image is so plain anyway, those are perfectly fine

Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this image would make me understand the subject of the article better in any way. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated in the image description: "To illustrate a key element of the plot in this episode. This screenshot depicts characters that are integral to the plot line. The screenshot depicts an important part of the episode and will be used in an infobox to provide critical commentary in both in- and out-universe capacity." Other articles about television episodes use similar images (1, 2, 3, 4). Also, I think images of the actors serve the purpose of describing the actors, not the episode itself. — John Biancato 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've now proposed all four for deletion (see below). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the thing is, this "key" element clearly doesn't need illustration. What is there about this picture that can't be said in words? And it does in no way provide any critical commentary in either "in- and out-universe capacity". In fact, the scene that the image illustrates is only mentioned once in the article and that is in one of the sentences in the plot section. The fact that other articles use screenshots doesn't mean that it's right. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not only the scene, the article also mentions guest actor Michael Douglas and his performance. Since the show is a copyrighted work, no free version is available. This article from Entertainment Weekly shows the same picture when describing the episode. — John Biancato 19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the image reveals absolutely nothing about his performance. That's why a free image of Douglas is just as good! Just because there's no free screenshot from the episode available doesn't mean we have to include a non-free one - You're completely ignoring the first sentence of Wikipedia:Non-free content. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna mullaly dolls and dolls.jpg

Dolls and Dolls: fails WP:NFCC#8. There are just two people looking at each other, so it doesn't help understanding the topic any better.
Madonna filmography: Fails not only WP:NFCC#8, but also WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#1, since there are free images of Madonna which can be used instead. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image was removed from 'Madonna filmography'. For the article about the episode "Dolls and Dolls": the image illustrates the episode, showing a scene described in the plot section, and since it is a copyrighted work, no free version is available. — John Biancato 23:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

joke derivation of original image - compare with [[File:Toxoplasma gondii Life cycle PHIL 3421 lores.jpg]] upper left corner - pussy changed to hissy. Created today, inserted for one minute in Toxoplasmosis. Shenme (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |-
 ! width="50%" align="left"  | <span style="color:gray">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 20|August 20]]
-! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 22|August 22]] <span style="color:gray">></span>
+! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 22|August 22]] <span style="color:gray">&gt;</span>
 |}</div></noinclude>
 ===August 21===

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 21: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:11, 25 August 2012

August 21

File:Jup ganymede comp.png

File:Nepenthes gracillima distribution.png

File:Quinn James Season 9.png

File:CDU(Ost).gif

File:Rome 2004 Olympic bid logo.png

File:Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

File:Stockholm 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

File:Buenos Aires 2004 Olympic bid logo.svg

File:Ranjit Barthakur.pdf

File:Nepenthes dubia distribution.png

File:Cassandra fox.jpg

File:Gggbrihannadeluxeedition.jpg

File:Libera christmas deluxe.jpg

File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

File:PinkFloyd MastersofRock.jpg

File:Pink Floyd Relics 1996-300.jpg

File:RelicsUSA-300.jpg

File:Relics05-b-300.jpg

File:Will & Grace - Fagel Attraction screenshot.jpg

File:Madonna mullaly dolls and dolls.jpg

File:Friends thelastone.jpg

File:SofiaBetty.png

File:Charliealan8.jpg

File:Toxoplasma gondii Life cycle PHILA 3421 lores.jpg