Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

File:Map sunsetcoast.jpg

Is it really own work? Doubtful. Besides, it's unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuperBowl46.jpg

A replacement photo has been uploaded. Plus, horrible JPG. OB WebTV3 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Sydney Girls High School yard.jpg

Low-res photo of a nondescript school yard. Unused. Due to low resolution, not particularly useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prototype Clay Model (W163).png

Two non-free photos / screenshots of a car prototype. Sole accompanying text is a statement about "early 1994 when a final design was chosen and approved by the executive board". No explanation of why we'd need to see as many as two photos to understand that statement. No concrete visual details of the photographs are discussed any further. There are no visible design differences between these models and the final released car that I can notice; if there are any they are not being explained and discussed (not surprising, since supposedly it's the "final design".) We don't need visual illustration to demonstrate the self-evident fact that a final design model looks the same as the finished product. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prototype Clay Model (W163) ML430.png

Second of a pair of similar items, see next entry above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random frame of a rather nondescript scene, not the object of any particular commentary, not needed for understanding the plot or anything else in the text. Meaningless generic FUR. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator obviously failed to read the article. If he had, he would understand that the article is largely about basic economics of needing an education and job as demonstrated with monopoly money. Please reread the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why I'd need this screenshot to understand that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A show is generally allowed one NFCC screenshot of an important scene.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such general allowance, no matter how many editors pretend there is. Every single item has to individually pass NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The frame is neither nondescript (It is the most important scene in the episode, as per the episode's alternate title). Furthermore, it is not absent particular commentary (E.g., see the Associated Press review by Jerry Buck and Mike Boone's review). Please reread the episode before making random statements without doing so. Your initial objection is offbase and you have presented no other argument.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in those quotes that the image would help me to understand. The critics speak of the dialogue. What does the image tell me about the dialogue? Nothing. In fact, I need a lot of help from the text in order to begin understanding the image; the image does nothing to help me understand the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you continue to not understand that your initial objection was offbase. I.e., that this is the episode's most important scene and that the scene is the subject of critical review?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to not understand the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that your initial statement is offbase. It should be the following: Non-free TV episode screenshot. ~~Apparently random~~Extremely important frame of a ~~rather nondescript scene, not the object of any particular commentary,~~scene that is the subject of critical review ~~not needed for understanding~~ depicting the central theme of the plot ~~or anything else in the text. Meaningless generic FUR. Fails NFCC#8.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not agree with this point, that is the basis for our disagreement. Please explain which part you do not agree with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to you how NFCC#8 applies to this case. I can't do more than that. If you don't want to understand it, there's nothing more I can do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two sentences to the plot section that might make the image seem more relevant to you. ("Cliff gives him an amount of money representing a generous monthly salary for a 'regular person'. He then takes money out of Theo's hand in amounts representing various costs such as housing, food, clothes, transportation and finally a girlfriend.")--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, because now the text helps me even better to understand the image. Trouble is, the image still isn't helping me to understand the text. The text is perfectly understandable all on its own. Still fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get an understanding of your interpretation from WP:NFCC#8. I looked at WP:FA. 8 of the first 10 FAs alphabetically have infobox images where the text and picture explain each other. Which of these meet your standard at "Abyssinia, Henry", "All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)", "The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson", "Confirmed Dead", "Damien (South Park)" and "Doomsday (Doctor Who)"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those appear to be bad, at least at first sight, some outrageously so; a few are debatable. But an "otherstuffexists" argument is always weak, even if the "other stuff" is featured articles. I have little trust in the ability and dedication of the FA process when it comes to protecting the non-free content policy, especially in a corner of the project like TV episodes, where NFC abuse is particularly rampant. Fortunately, NFC policy isn't defined at WP:FA, but at WP:NFC, and here at FFD. I could just as easily show you several dozen prior deletion debates of TV episode pictures, which show a very clear, stable consensus about what the reasonable minimum standards are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. My point is that if practically every WP:FA would fail your application of the standard, you must be applying it too strictly. It is fairly widely accepted that an image from an important scene that is the subject of critical review depicting the central theme of the plot is allowed. That is the prevailing substance of the law and the perceived spirit of the law to many even though you might have an argument based on the letter of the law. This is the kind of image that 4 out of 5 image reviewers would allow. Your interpretation of NFCC would necessitate that a vast majority. Probably more than 75% of the infobox images at WP:FA be deleted. Even though the letter of the law might back what you are saying, it is not how the substance of the law has evolved and is not the perceived spirit of the law.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "law" here that applies specifically to TV episode screenshots, so there is neither a "spirit" nor a "letter" of it to consider. The only rule we have is NFCC#8 itself. The image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This one doesn't. That's all there is to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: Isn't there suppose to be a tag on the image where it is used so that people other than you and me will know about the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2: Let me make my point another way. The common application of NFCC#8 is that a picture is worth 1000 words. If you have a picture of an important thematic element is is perceived to be more revealing to a reader than 1000 words about it. Seeing Cosby take the money out of his hands is suppose to be perceived as not only helpful to the understanding of the theme, but the superior explanation of it. That is how WP works at the highest level. That is why all the other NFCC reviewers are letting "image from an important scene that is the subject of critical review depicting the central theme of the plot" pass. I am not pointing you to images that no one has looked at. The reason that I point you to FA is that your peers are diligently evaluating images there. Your peers have consistently applied NFCC with the picture is worth 1000 words philosophy in this regard. In a sense FA is not really an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument because those are images that are being critically reviewed, closely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offer I have not looked at the WP:FAL. I would be willing to go by a majority opinion at FA for 1. All 2012 episodes, 2. The last 10 FA episode promotions, or 3. the last year of episode promotions. I have not gone throught the logs, but am willing to go by the majority opinion of FA reviewers. Would you be willing to interpret NFCC as your peers do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume you will be reasonable and agree to interpret NFCC as your peers do. I am going to try to see what the recent FAs have been like by evaluating [1].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to try going back to the beginning of 2011 to hope for a sample size.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 episodes promoted since 1/1/11 have infobox images of an important theme: "Over There (Fringe)", "Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)", "Stark Raving Dad". Why are any of them different from the infobox image at issue. This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I am presenting the current prevailing sentiment among image reviewers. We could broaden the sample size by using films, but films always get to use a promotional image (just because).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willpowerwilliam.jpg

Cover is confirmed as fake. — Statυs (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merlin cooper.jpg

Orphan Merlin (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]