Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 20
June 20
Image:U 698, Veckholm.jpg
- Duplicate of file on commons Berig (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mreader.png
- This image is of lower quality and higher file size than Image:Mreader.jpeg, and identical image in another file format. - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:US&S.jpg
- Still no OTRS permission ViperSnake151 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Uss chicago ca.jpg
- - uploaded by RadicalBender (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, higher quality version of photo is now on commons (Image: USS Chicago (1885).jpg). BlueAzure (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image:Kashminder chahil.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:BIANCA TOPIC.jpg
- - uploaded by Biancatopic (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Matias Perel.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:DCFN0001.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:AdvKoyippallyJosephJoseph.jpg
- - uploaded by Jomonkoyippally (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kr pic 1 sept 07.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Naledge (Samuel Morales Jr ).JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- - uploaded by Piffcitynaledge (notify | contribs).
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Image:Ramon Lacbain.jpg
- - uploaded by Jbfisherking (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Leka.jpg
- - uploaded by Armanijeans (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Laura Huggins.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:MarioArindaeng.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:TimBadal.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:ScottCapp.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:KeithMDuff.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:AlGonnerman.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:RayPrigodich.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:37482796.jpg
- - uploaded by Vivekathira (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:John Cameron McGee.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Trippy Sir McGee.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:MallonElaineHEADSHOT.JPG
- - uploaded by ElaineMallon (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Alex Safari.jpg
- - uploaded by Canadianalex (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Alanbryson.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kelly hi! 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maurice Bretzfield.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zoziz.jpg
- - uploaded by Ngayielvis (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Latrivia Nelson.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Glasses on.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:COLOR HEADSHOT KL.jpg
- - uploaded by Kristinluck (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rachael Hosken Ruddick.jpg
- - uploaded by Rachaelruddick (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Img,046.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Nisa5.jpg
- - uploaded by IVYLEAGUEENT (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a musician who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Matthew J. Phillips 1999 body burn.jpg
- Orphan, copyvio. Screenshot of a television broadcast. BlueAzure (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Body burn 1999.jpg
- Orphan, copyvio. Screenshot of a television broadcast. BlueAzure (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lou Carcasole.jpg
- - uploaded by Moeberrigan (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mmff.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rtkm.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Docanlo.JPG
- - uploaded by Johncexton (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a musician who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Engr. Chaudhry Azher Hussain Gujjar.jpg
- - uploaded by Azhergujjer (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Larry ford.jpg
- - uploaded by Greenfrog759 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wei cheng smiling at the cam.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Boyz aside.jpg
- - uploaded by Bustsomeflowz (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Patrick Porter Web Pic.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Haroon Rashid April 2007.jpg
- - uploaded by Haroonrashid98 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Me7.JPG
- - uploaded by Jeremycage (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Me15.JPG
- - uploaded by Jeremycage (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:The Rain City Shwillers.jpg
- - uploaded by Johnnyheartbreaker1 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Pretentious promo2.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paladinos 3.2.07 -0015a.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paladinos 3.2.07 -0003a.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paladinos 3.2.07 -0003.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a band that does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:MarcS.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Billy close up.JPG
- - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Billy close up.JPG listed for deletion|]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl:User talk:]] notify] | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Billy surf blue 6.JPG
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Billy surf blue 4.JPG
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Raughty.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:MichelleKahn.jpg
- - uploaded by Michelle32 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:PrakashNair.jpg
- - uploaded by Jodysampson (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Neil MacLure.JPG
- - uploaded by Maclureclan (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:KeithQiLuoHeadPortraitSmall.jpg
- - uploaded by DavidLouvre (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wamono Moses in 2006.jpg
- - uploaded by Mightymoze (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Arjun kumar.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:IlToro.JPG
- - uploaded by Francesco.gessa (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kovo.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Moacyr M Bittencourt Jr.JPG
- - uploaded by Moacyr Mendonca Bittencourt (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chest pain.jpg
- - uploaded by Steve01245 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, unencyclopedic. BlueAzure (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tommy 9.jpg
- - uploaded by Tommy clipzz (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a musician who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tommy clipzz.jpg
- - uploaded by Tommy clipzz (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a musician who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Young Boss New.jpg
- - uploaded by KCStreetHeat (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tme.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Comberphoto.jpg
- - uploaded by SonicArrest (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:ShaunB.JPG
- - uploaded by Shaunbonline (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Head Shot.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Pankaj arora.png
- - uploaded by Lorefinder (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Anusha.jpeg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:EHv5.jpg
- - uploaded by OSTERREICHER (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Miguel1.jpg
- - uploaded by Doctormiguel (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, the current version is a copyvio from [1] and the older versions are of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Smorgan robinson col .jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bob 2.JPG
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Molly Hyde.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tamia.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:NewGreg.jpg
- Orphan, photo of a person who does not have an article. BlueAzure (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ufophil.jpg
- Orphan, the article this was on was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:The Edge Of Beyond Logo.jpg
- Orphan, the article associated with this image was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Nastdonkey.jpeg
- Orphaned image, with far superior version on commons (Image:Democraticjackass.jpg - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Nastelephant.jpeg
- Orphaned image with far superior version on commons (Image:NastRepublicanElephant.jpg) - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:NewMedia.jpg
- - uploaded by JeremyVaught (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic. Kelly hi! 04:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:SEMKO.gif
- Obsoleted by PNG version. Kelly hi! 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Stanobal.jpg
- Orphaned, unidentified subject, no description or context. Kelly hi! 12:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Z_-_Tyler.JPG
- - uploaded by Tyler7y13r (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:ZGarden_860315_70.jpg
- - uploaded by Amirskip4life (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 16:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zagurski_in_bullpen_-_CBP.jpg
- Orphaned, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zak_in_garage_2007.jpg
- - uploaded by Dylan_Bumgardner (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zak_in_garage_again_2007.jpg
- - uploaded by Dylan_Bumgardner (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zak2.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:SundialBridgeCA1.jpg
- - uploaded by Leonard_G. (notify | contribs).
- Additional images: Image:SundialBridgeCA2.jpg, Image:SundiaBridgeCA3.jpg, Image:SundialBridgeCA4.jpg, Image:SundialBridgeCA5.jpg
- Has a watermark, violating WP:IUP, and we have other free images of this bridge. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kelly&Jurado.JPG
- Fair use rationale states that image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic. However, this is not the case as the film poster is already used for this purpose. The image therefore fails WP:NFCC#8 Papa November (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this image, which is a screenshot, while said film poster is a drawing in which none of the actors / actresses is recognizable, and Grace Kelly isn't in it at all. Thus, the screenshot "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic." <KF> 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- All the reader can take from this is that the picture was a western with Grace Kelley in it; I don't see any significant benefit to the reader. So I agree this fails NFCC #8. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose the reader can gather that particular piece of information from the text of the article. However, what Kelly and Jurado looked like in the movie, what clothes they wore, even the setting in the background are more easily rendered by means of an image. It wouldn't be Wikipedia, would it, if someone hadn't put up a perfectly legitimate image (even reviewed) for deletion and someone else immediately supported that request with an attempt at an argument. <KF> 22:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to think that what they looked like (beyond looking like the particular actors and actresses) and what clothes they wore are significant in any way. Have their appearances been specifically commented on by reliable sources? As far as anyone can tell from the image they looked exactly like characters in any other western. The same goes for the background. That's why text suffices in this particular situation. The only reason for an image would be if there was something that made their appearance particularly noteworthy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The world will surely be a better and fairer place once this gratuitous image has been deleted. And of course all female characters in westerns look like those two, especially pioneer women. <KF> 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to think that what they looked like (beyond looking like the particular actors and actresses) and what clothes they wore are significant in any way. Have their appearances been specifically commented on by reliable sources? As far as anyone can tell from the image they looked exactly like characters in any other western. The same goes for the background. That's why text suffices in this particular situation. The only reason for an image would be if there was something that made their appearance particularly noteworthy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK guys, this is getting a bit too passionate so let's get back to the point! Carl, my problem with the image is the poor justification for its use, not its content per se. KF, if you want the image to be kept, then why not update the image description page to show the real intended purpose for its use? Surely you must agree that it can't be the "primary means of visual identification" for the whole film if it only illustrates two of the characters? I've moved the existing FUR into a template - the purpose and replaceability fields need significant improvement though. Papa November (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that this image could pass NFCC#8 without significant changes to the article demonstrating there is significant critical commentary on the appearance of the characters shown in the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose the reader can gather that particular piece of information from the text of the article. However, what Kelly and Jurado looked like in the movie, what clothes they wore, even the setting in the background are more easily rendered by means of an image. It wouldn't be Wikipedia, would it, if someone hadn't put up a perfectly legitimate image (even reviewed) for deletion and someone else immediately supported that request with an attempt at an argument. <KF> 22:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Teri Hatcher is Lois Lane.jpg
- Appearance of character in non-free screenshot is very similar to that of the actress herself, for whom a free image exists. Non-free screenshot is therefore likely to fail WP:NFCC#1 Papa November (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- delete fails wp:nfc#1, It would be interesting how many images of this type there are out there Fasach Nua (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:IBM7030.jpg
- Free images of the machine are already used in the article, and neither of the men in the image are mentioned outside the image caption. Image therefore fails WP:NFCC#8 Papa November (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zandigmondotod2.jpg
- Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zay_Wright_Pictures_038.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:De unna coat.png
- - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
- Image is PD in Germany, but no indication given that it is PD in the US too. Papa November (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most other German coat of arms are on commons already, they don't share the copyright paranoia for these. andy (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked into this further and updated the PD tagging. Hopefully everything's OK now. Papa November (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, please could you provide the source and author information? Papa November (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most other German coat of arms are on commons already, they don't share the copyright paranoia for these. andy (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tuba.png
- Image is masking an almost identical Commons version of the same file. The only difference is that the opaque background has been removed at Commons. Papa November (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Plpart.png
- Subject of image is derivative of non-free musical composition by The Beatles Papa November (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- comment: Commons version of the image has been deleted per discussion Papa November (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is two and a half bars out of a 3+ minute piece. Does fair use not apply here? I am unconvinced that you have made a valid case for deletion but I don't really care, as you will probably just delete it anyway. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Including a non-free image in an article is fine, as long as it is tagged as such, and has a good fair use rationale for each article. This image is marked as GFDL however, which is not possible unless the original creator has released it under a compatible license. No fair use rationale exists either. Feel free to update the image description page if you think it qualifies for fair use. Papa November (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no energy for this. I find it genuinely remarkable that it has existed undisturbed for so many years and now suddenly is the subject of this action. I suggest you do whatever you like with it. I know you think you are improving or protecting Wikipedia in good faith so I think I will just wander off and let you get on with it. Interested parties will probably still be able to find it elsewhere in less well-policed parts of the web. Best wishes Nomorenonotnever (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:De rheinberg coat.png
- - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
- Image is PD in Germany, but no indication is given that it is PD in the US too Papa November (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most other German coat of arms are on commons already, they don't share the copyright paranoia for these. andy (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've updated the PD tags. Please could you add source/author information? Papa November (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most other German coat of arms are on commons already, they don't share the copyright paranoia for these. andy (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Stolen_Earth_gang.jpg
- Image used for decorative purposes. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented on The Stolen Earth talk page that this may be a good image to use on the main Doctor Who page in the Companions section, since most of the characters in this picture are mentioned there, thus being more than decorative. --MASEM 23:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented over at AN/I my reasons for deletion. See here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Already tagged as orphaned. Is this necessary? Also, instead of sending readers all over the place, I ask that anyone post all deletion related comments here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The image was removed because an editor thought it might not be kosher under NFCC. Deleting it as an orphan would not be proper unless the article's editors decide that the image is unsuitable for reasons apart from NFCC (and I don't think anyone is advocating that). If the IfD concludes that the NFCC are met, then by consequence the image should not have been orphaned in the first place. And if the IfD results in deletion, well, there's no need to delete it twice. :-) — xDanielx T/C\R 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- The Stolen Earth is about a group of characters and their interactions. This image is a representative depiction of those characters. The significance is clear. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't need a picture of a group of characters to understand the idea of "a group of characters". Non-free images are supposed to enhance our understanding of what they are illustrating, and a picture about a group of people (which may or may not even be for that episode - i.e. no source of publication) is not necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per precedent, "understanding" is interpreted broadly to include reasonable forms of visual identification. Consider logos for instance -- they almost invariably do not contribute to any conceptual understanding, but their use as non-free media is widely accepted. That's not to say that all forms of identification get a free pass with C#8, but this case seems relatively clear since the image in question gives a representative visual portrayal of each of the show's major characters. I hope that the ongoing WT:NFC discussions will result in some clarifications, as the "understanding" rhetoric is rather unclear. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't an image of a logo, it's an image of living people. As I've stated, these "main characters" are not the equivalent to the Dell logo, or Mickey Mouse ears - especially when WP:NFC actually separates them into "Logos" and states that they can be used simply for "identification" purposes. Logos are not bound by the "critical commentary" that promotional images, screenshots, or basically any other type of non-free image that is not a logo or a stamp (which are the only two that do not require any form of commentary to substiate usage in an article). Which brings me back to the other point, I still have yet to see a single source verifying that this image was published outside of Wikipedia, AND had anything to do with this episode. The rationale claims it was from a press kit, something we cannot verify on our own (they generally don't give those to the public, hence the "press") and need a third-party source to say "this came from the press kit". Given that no one in this list is new, I'm not seeing the necessity for understanding when it appears that all of them have their own articles (with pictures). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per precedent, "understanding" is interpreted broadly to include reasonable forms of visual identification. Consider logos for instance -- they almost invariably do not contribute to any conceptual understanding, but their use as non-free media is widely accepted. That's not to say that all forms of identification get a free pass with C#8, but this case seems relatively clear since the image in question gives a representative visual portrayal of each of the show's major characters. I hope that the ongoing WT:NFC discussions will result in some clarifications, as the "understanding" rhetoric is rather unclear. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't need a picture of a group of characters to understand the idea of "a group of characters". Non-free images are supposed to enhance our understanding of what they are illustrating, and a picture about a group of people (which may or may not even be for that episode - i.e. no source of publication) is not necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but move to a different page A point to be aware of: Jackie and Mickey, two of the characters in the image, may not be in "The Stolen Earth". So this image would probably be better at Journey's End (Doctor Who). U-Mos (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The article now has complete cast information. The image is a much better contextual fit now than it was when this trouble began. This is a point raised by Edokter. See also here for a discussion started by U-Mos. (For what it's worth, I think it should only be deleted if we eventually have better images for both finale episodes.) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, agree w/ rationale provided by xDanielx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The characters in this image look exactly like they always have with these actors, with no significant changes from other episodes that I can see. So the image is not needed to help the reader understand the characters' appearance. Certainly the image doesn't help us understand the episode, since the image is a posed publicity shot that could go with any episode involving these characters. So this fails NFCC#8, as it does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding of the subject (which is not Doctor Who in general, but this particular episode). If used on a different page, like a list of characters, it might pass NFCC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- But you've never seen these characters together, and chances are you never will again. — Edokter • Talk • 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't need an image to understand that fact, though; it can be expressed fine with text. Also, it's not as if this is an episode involving Doctor Who characters and characters from another unrelated show. The characters are all familiar Doctor Who characters, so it isn't really surprising that they would appear together, given the genre of the show. I that that if we are going to use a nonfree image for this episode article, it would be much better to use an image that visually conveys something nontrivial about the episode. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- But you've never seen these characters together, and chances are you never will again. — Edokter • Talk • 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What can't be "expressed fine with text"? You could do the whole of axiomatic geometry without diagrams! I don't think you're doing justice to just how nontrivial this is. Never before have so many eras' worth of companions (the Sarah-Jane 70s era and the Rose, Martha and Donna eras in this case) had their various companions brought together, except in The Five Doctors I suppose. It's as nontrivial as the Cybermen and Daleks at last being in a single frame in Doomsday. Feel free, however, to provide your point on what really would be nontrivial. And then we have the issue of multiple shows: okay, not unrelated in the sense of taking place in different fictional universes, but Disney crossovers are still significant etc. Besides, there is little else these shows have in common, considering the adult themes in Torchwood. (Of course, the crossover of that with Doctor Who in The Stolen Earth extends to including at least two previously Torchwood-only characters, kind of the opposite to what happened with Martha recently.) Sorry, I'm starting to ramble. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're providing a "fan" imposed importance on the image. Unless there are secondary sources discussing the impact of such a gathering, then the simple fact that this is the first (and possibly only) time they are all together is irrelevant to random, average readers. We don't cater pages to just fans. There is no critical commentary on the image itself (see the non-free criteria for promotional images). Still fails #4, as no one has yet to actually provide a "published" source to show this is an official picture. Don't give me the "it's obvious it's them", because you can fake such things as well as steal them. You have to meet ALL 10 criteria, not just the ones you want to meet. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think the image is a good way of showing what the next episode is going to contain. Jammy (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"It'll help" "No it won't" - that seems to come up a lot in this discussion. Bignole, save your breath giving your standard reply to Jammy. Does anyone have any suggestion as to we can tell when an image "helps", given that no image is ever necessary but any image may make things easier by offering an alternative way to see things? It seems a philosophical question (no offence to philosophy or philosophers) we haven't really answered yet. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's a simple reponse. If you have no argument against it, then don't clutter the page with banter and circular ideas of "well, since no one can tell what's what then it should stay". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Temporary Keep I think the image is OK for now, but after broadcast, both The Stolen Earth and Journey's End should have pictures of the actual episodes. That'll render this image redundant. Digifiend (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- We don't keep images that fail NFCC just because we need something. Right now, the page itself fails WP:NOTE, so why are we even having the discussion on the image if the page shouldn't be there? We don't need an image for a basic plot summary. "The Doctor reunites with his old companions" is pretty straight forward, and doesn't really require an image. Some images do help, and ARE necessary. The image in this section is necessary to help the reader understand exactly what the special effects team actually did in the show. Notice how the image has critical commentary describing what is going on. A single sentence of "people coming together" is not critical commentary; it's a simple statement that doesn't require additional explaination. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- All I can say is the image you have just pointed to seems like every other Wikipedia image, or indeed every image anywhere in the world: it doesn't do what text could not. You raise the interesting point with the Smallville picture that the caption does what the image could not. If an image not having that characteristic can be an argument that the picture does not deserve to stay on Wikipedia, in contradistinction to a gazillion other non-free images, presumably that's because you don't see it as very likely that the caption will be improved any time soon. I am unpersuaded by such logic. You're now turning your earlier basis for complaining on its head, if I have understood you correctly. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't turned anything on its head. Your argument, as with any other argument for rebuttle, always takes the copout approach of "well, you cannot define 'necessicity' and NO image is 'necessary'". Then, someone shows you an image that actually meets the criteria and your argument is "it isn't necessary". It wouldn't matter if the image really was necessary, you'd always argue the same thing because in reality you have no real argument for keeping the image, so you take a defensive stance of claiming all images on Wikipedia are unnecessary and thus save yourself the trouble of having an actual argument for keeping the image. It's as simple as this, does the image meet the NFCC criteria. Obviously not #4 and #8. Since you have to meet ALL 10 criteria, and this image fails two of those, then I'd have to say it needs to go. Unless you can quickly satisfy those criteria, this simple argument of "no image is necessary" or "it's historic because it brings together people from different eras" is irrelevant. One is simply lazy debating skills, and the other is original research unless a source can be found that suggests that this is some monumental moment in the show's history. So, policy dictates that you must satisfy all criteria when it comes to non-free images. Without a persuasive argument as to why this image needs to be exempt from the rules, policy trumps fan opinion. So, unless your next reponse isn't just circular logic based around the idea that ALL images are unnecessary, then there is nothing more we need to say about this. The facts are clear; the image fails two criteria. You can try and side step that all you want, but it doesn't make it less true. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, aside from the fact that using issues other than NFCC as a basis for objection is not something you have totally avoided, surely NFCC#8 is about helpfulness. NFCC#8 is, ultimately, a matter of degree; images are more or less significant in their contribution to understanding, so in practice consensus has to define whether the extent to which #8 is obeyed by an image is "enough". On consensus grounds, you're really not doing well! As for #4, there are two possibilities. (1) The image is fake, as we will know by the deletion date of 28th, because that's also when the episode airs. (2) The image is not fake, which again will be known by the deletion date. So, it seems like the deletion date is at just the right time for someone either to find it published in a source or not! 90.210.193.126 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't turned anything on its head. Your argument, as with any other argument for rebuttle, always takes the copout approach of "well, you cannot define 'necessicity' and NO image is 'necessary'". Then, someone shows you an image that actually meets the criteria and your argument is "it isn't necessary". It wouldn't matter if the image really was necessary, you'd always argue the same thing because in reality you have no real argument for keeping the image, so you take a defensive stance of claiming all images on Wikipedia are unnecessary and thus save yourself the trouble of having an actual argument for keeping the image. It's as simple as this, does the image meet the NFCC criteria. Obviously not #4 and #8. Since you have to meet ALL 10 criteria, and this image fails two of those, then I'd have to say it needs to go. Unless you can quickly satisfy those criteria, this simple argument of "no image is necessary" or "it's historic because it brings together people from different eras" is irrelevant. One is simply lazy debating skills, and the other is original research unless a source can be found that suggests that this is some monumental moment in the show's history. So, policy dictates that you must satisfy all criteria when it comes to non-free images. Without a persuasive argument as to why this image needs to be exempt from the rules, policy trumps fan opinion. So, unless your next reponse isn't just circular logic based around the idea that ALL images are unnecessary, then there is nothing more we need to say about this. The facts are clear; the image fails two criteria. You can try and side step that all you want, but it doesn't make it less true. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- All I can say is the image you have just pointed to seems like every other Wikipedia image, or indeed every image anywhere in the world: it doesn't do what text could not. You raise the interesting point with the Smallville picture that the caption does what the image could not. If an image not having that characteristic can be an argument that the picture does not deserve to stay on Wikipedia, in contradistinction to a gazillion other non-free images, presumably that's because you don't see it as very likely that the caption will be improved any time soon. I am unpersuaded by such logic. You're now turning your earlier basis for complaining on its head, if I have understood you correctly. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- We don't keep images that fail NFCC just because we need something. Right now, the page itself fails WP:NOTE, so why are we even having the discussion on the image if the page shouldn't be there? We don't need an image for a basic plot summary. "The Doctor reunites with his old companions" is pretty straight forward, and doesn't really require an image. Some images do help, and ARE necessary. The image in this section is necessary to help the reader understand exactly what the special effects team actually did in the show. Notice how the image has critical commentary describing what is going on. A single sentence of "people coming together" is not critical commentary; it's a simple statement that doesn't require additional explaination. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- First, please read WP:NFC#Images where it says promotional images must have "critical commentary". Guess what this image does not have. Thus, it fails non-free criteria. Second, please read WP:NFCC#4 where it says "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia". That has nothing do with with being fake or real. That says that someone besides us has published it (legally). In other words, saying "it came from a press kit" is not publishing. We cannot verify that press kit unless someone publishes a statement saying such a thing (must be from a reliable source). Since consensus established those rules, it looks like you're in the minority. As for the image itself, not only does it not actually contribute anything to the article but eye candy, but there is no evidence to even suggest that it was even meant for this episode (i.e. see NFCC#4). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Adamantium-Strong Delete - aside from Big's astoundingly patient explanations, there seems to be this feeling among the fans that if an article doesn't have an image, it is somehow a failure as an article. It is bone-headed reaction. To add any image (usually, the wrong one, and lost on the casual reader) just to be like other scifi wikiprojects that have images in their articles, too is bone-headed.
- The image is a press release. It offers nothing of its own, is not taken from any penultimate moment of any episode, speaks to nothing of the plot, and the only thing that might override these concerns would be if it were free. Which it is not. It is decorative with no connection to the article in which some desire it to be placed. Wake up, Whoovers/Whovians/whatever - if you keep adding images that are sub-par, you only feed into the frenzy that inspires folk with razor-thin interpretations of NFCC to nom the images - all episodic images - for deletion. Take a deep breath, calm down, and realize that you first have to pick the right images, and then you have to pick your battles. This is not, and should not be one of them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
delete - Fantastic image, which does nothing increase the readers' understanding of the episode WP:NFC#8, easily described with text WP:NFC#1. The image isn't even from the episode! Fasach Nua (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be seen as one of those people who needs an image. I don't want to be seen as someone who doesn't give policy full respect. In this post, I will assume you are as right as you can get about policy, then respond to that.
Ok, let's suppose the onus really is on me to point to something better than "a press kit". Will this week's TVEasy, What's on TV AND TV & satellite week do? They all use this image, sometimes with a Red Dalek picture over the top but on at least one occasion on its own. This URL shows those images in context. (THat takes care of Fasach's second argument as well.) I don't know the exact dates on which those publications come out, since neither their Wikipedia articles nor their websites say, but if they come out on Tuesday like the Radio Times, it would explain how they ended up here and also would allow people who don't trust a blog to verify whether these are real. In any case, you'll be able to do it before midnight on Saturday.
Let's also suppose that "critical commentary" is really required. Someone please meet me half-way by being sufficiently non-vague about what that phrase means in practice that I can have a stab at providing it. Finally, let's suppose that the significance of the image in helping others to understand needs to be proven too. Here are my attempts at proving it.
(1) So many sources (see above) are using it for that very purpose! Presumably that's a good indicator that it gets the job done.
(2) To argue that there is some other standard on which we judge that matter, besides the ideas of the media themselves, smacks to me of original research. (Come to think of it, "critical commentary" could easily be that too, but I'm sure someone can explain what it really involves.)
(3) The usefulness of an image in helping understanding, where it exists for some people but not others, is worth taking seriously, even by those who don't get how it helps others.
Having said all that, I want to meet the deletionists in this matter half-way, kind of. This image is due for deletion, if the reasons for keeping it are not good enough, at a time when something else will likely be present. I think much furor over this was initiated by the initial attempt by deletionists involved to have the image absent from any articles during the discussion (both before and after it became a formal request for deletion). Oh, and one more concession: if there's anything else you object to, please tell us exactly what would need to change for you. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You source doesn't show where THIS image came from. Given the fact that there is no text overlapping it. Again, you are assuming that we are calling the image a fake, when #4 says nothing about being fake. The question is, how did the uploader get a version of the image without it being cluttered by all those other images and text that the magazine page had?
- Critical commentary is a discussion of the image, supported by reliable sources. This does not constitute simple statement of identification (i.e. "This image contains the Doctor, Rose, Donna, Martha, etc etc) as there is nothing critical about that. Go back to the image I provided you before. What is being described is the process by which the special effects people went about creating an animation for the audience to understand how kryptonite actually effected Clark. Another image is seen at the Fight Club page. Here, it is describing the look of the home, based on what the director was intending to convey to the audience. You use images to convey additional understanding to things that are being described textually, because the text is something that could have a subjective interpretation. One person might assume that Clark's entire hand turns green (like the Hulk) when around kryptonite. Another person might have a different idea of what a decaying home looks like. The Dark Knight uses an image of the Joker, which is surrounded by text describing how his look has been changed for the film and what went into that particular appearance. Notice how, other than the poster for the film, there isn't an image of Batman on the page when it's a Batman film. That's because even though there are plenty of pictures of Batman on the web, we don't have an critical commentary describing his appearance. Thus, we don't have a reason to use the image beyond simple eye candy.
- This brings us back to the Doctor Who image. What reason do we have for the image, beyond simple eye candy? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, illustrative image, complete violation of WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we really have to know the original source rather than being able to give the secondary examples I have cited, and if we really would have to either describe the director's/producer's/scriptwriter's intentions or else say how they made the photo, and if we really are worried about how the uncovered image was obtained, then I concede. (In my opinion these rules are crazy, but then I think the standard policy of taking the expert point of view on any science contrary to scriptural literalism but the neutral point of view on everything else is also crazy; it doesn't mean I can fight it.) I'll trust that these latest descriptions of the rules reflect consensus, especially as the image's survival is far more objected to than was the case initially. However, if one of the increasingly many, initially a minority deletionists were responsible for uploading something better in the next few days, we'd probably all be happier. This will be my last contribution to this long discussion. No hard feelings. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep per the various arguments here. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Er, can you note any argument in particular (rather one that hasn't been refuted rather definitively), or is this bc you are a fan? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- What amazes me is the determination to keep an image (which fails certain criteria of NFCC) under the guise of "it's important", yet, most us know it's probably going to be replaced anyway come June 28, when the episode broadcasts. So, I'm curious as to why everyone is fighting to save this image, when it's in violation of the policy and a newer image--one less likely to be in violation, or at least, violate less criteria--is almost certain to appear come June 28/29. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, some have become available from the official site. This image is one of them. Thanks StewieGriffin! for discovering that. Yet although that takes care of #4, that still leaves #8/critical commentary, which are probably two sides of the same coin. In other words, insofar as we can (or cannot) find a significance for this image, we can (or cannot) express this in terms of critical commentary. (Incidentally, my one problem with "critical commentary" is its name. I'd probably have called it contextual commentary or something like that.) Now, what form could such commentary possibly take? The BBC's caption was "Look who it is". Presumably, therefore, a critical comment might sound something like this: "This BBC image was produced to stress the large number of returning former companions of the Doctor in this episode." (I'd have mentioned its role as wallpaper and/or the fact that other such images reiterated Rose's return's significance and featured Donna's relatives etc., but captions have to be pretty short.) Does anyone have any suggestions on how if at all the suggested commentary could be reasonably improved? I apologise for my previous failures to recognise that the correct way of reacting to NFCC issues is "shape up or ship out". However, I think circumstances have changed. I think the realisation that that was likely to happen, so that time is needed for publications to come out in the rare cases where something is obtained prematurely as happened here, is the reason for so many people'd determination (to use Bignole's preferred description.) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Original research to suggest an intention when there isn't a source to back it up. You cannot apply a significance unless it's actually stated (i.e. "This was produced to stress the large number of returnning former companions.." - you have no idea why it was produced, because there isn't a source explaining the reasoning behind the production of the image). The fact that they are in the picture does not mean that the BBC intends to convey a significance to it. They could have simply done it for fans - "Look who it is!" You're right, #4 is satisified now, but unless there is actual commentary on the image #8 is still failed (and I do agree that the NFCC page and the NFC page should use "contextual commentary" as "critical" sounds like you need to discuss problems with the image). Back to commentary, you cannot take "Look who it is." and turn it into enough sentences of critical commentary to justify the image. To extrapolate a meaning from a vague statement would be original research. No more than the image of the Doctor and the blonde (sorry, not a fan, so I don't know her name) is any more significant when a caption of "Good to see you.". The fact that's it's wallpaper doesn't make a difference. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if you misunderstood my reference to wallpaper as an alleged example of significance. Well, I admit that the "obviousness" of the intention there isn't good enough. The trouble with this image is the BBC won't tell us what they were aiming at, or how they made it. No doubt the fact that it premiered in various other sources, subject to various modifications, is no good for commentary either. (In fact, don't even bother telling me you agree with me on that.) In light of just how demanding commentary is, I am now officially declaring myself a conditional fence-sitter: the image stays if someone manages the seemingly impossible, but not otherwise. (Mind you, I do still think it should be in the article until the discussion is over so more people know about it.) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Original research to suggest an intention when there isn't a source to back it up. You cannot apply a significance unless it's actually stated (i.e. "This was produced to stress the large number of returnning former companions.." - you have no idea why it was produced, because there isn't a source explaining the reasoning behind the production of the image). The fact that they are in the picture does not mean that the BBC intends to convey a significance to it. They could have simply done it for fans - "Look who it is!" You're right, #4 is satisified now, but unless there is actual commentary on the image #8 is still failed (and I do agree that the NFCC page and the NFC page should use "contextual commentary" as "critical" sounds like you need to discuss problems with the image). Back to commentary, you cannot take "Look who it is." and turn it into enough sentences of critical commentary to justify the image. To extrapolate a meaning from a vague statement would be original research. No more than the image of the Doctor and the blonde (sorry, not a fan, so I don't know her name) is any more significant when a caption of "Good to see you.". The fact that's it's wallpaper doesn't make a difference. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, some have become available from the official site. This image is one of them. Thanks StewieGriffin! for discovering that. Yet although that takes care of #4, that still leaves #8/critical commentary, which are probably two sides of the same coin. In other words, insofar as we can (or cannot) find a significance for this image, we can (or cannot) express this in terms of critical commentary. (Incidentally, my one problem with "critical commentary" is its name. I'd probably have called it contextual commentary or something like that.) Now, what form could such commentary possibly take? The BBC's caption was "Look who it is". Presumably, therefore, a critical comment might sound something like this: "This BBC image was produced to stress the large number of returning former companions of the Doctor in this episode." (I'd have mentioned its role as wallpaper and/or the fact that other such images reiterated Rose's return's significance and featured Donna's relatives etc., but captions have to be pretty short.) Does anyone have any suggestions on how if at all the suggested commentary could be reasonably improved? I apologise for my previous failures to recognise that the correct way of reacting to NFCC issues is "shape up or ship out". However, I think circumstances have changed. I think the realisation that that was likely to happen, so that time is needed for publications to come out in the rare cases where something is obtained prematurely as happened here, is the reason for so many people'd determination (to use Bignole's preferred description.) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- What amazes me is the determination to keep an image (which fails certain criteria of NFCC) under the guise of "it's important", yet, most us know it's probably going to be replaced anyway come June 28, when the episode broadcasts. So, I'm curious as to why everyone is fighting to save this image, when it's in violation of the policy and a newer image--one less likely to be in violation, or at least, violate less criteria--is almost certain to appear come June 28/29. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Er, can you note any argument in particular (rather one that hasn't been refuted rather definitively), or is this bc you are a fan? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)