Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 17 September 19 >

September 18

Uploaded by BFranks (notify | contribs). Orphan image Nv8200p talk 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Image added to user's page. -Nv8200p talk 21:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by JonathanRe (notify | contribs). OR, UE Nv8200p talk 00:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jdotpitts (notify | contribs). Orphan image Nv8200p talk 01:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by C.byron (notify | contribs). TeunSpaans 04:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Anetode (notify | contribs). No source. Answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. Searching "game boy advance" on stock.xchng yields nothing. Also, it isn't very encyclopedic, either. Hbdragon88 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image was retrieved from answers.com after it was orphaned in Wikipedia due to vandalism to the GBA article. The source is clearly stated and the photographer is credited, that Hbdragon88 couldn't find the image on stock.xcnng after a cursory search isn't that surprising - it might not have been labeled "game boy advance". That said, removing the image from the GBA article is an editorial decision. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as having no source. I couldn't find it on SXC either, nor could I find the photographer. Additionally, before it was deleted the first time there still was no source URL. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by SPUI (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Handicap reverse.svg on Commons. Tinlinkin 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Snäckskal (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jawed (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Dad's Puzzle.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by SimonMayer (notify | contribs). OR, UE, probably wrong license since Wikipedia logo is not PD. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Berkut (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Unicef flag.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Extremebob (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Nitroglycerin-2D-skeletal.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jag123 (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Aconitine new.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wahoofive (notify | contribs). OR. OB by Image:Bass clef.svg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wahoofive (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Tenor clef.svg on Commons Fritz S. (Talk) 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Justlikepoetry (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mariko (notify | contribs). OR, AB, lacks source, OB by images used in Parallelogram. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Map of Washington highlighting Lewis County.svg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Map of Washington highlighting Lewis County.svg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Raymondluxuryacht (notify | contribs). OB. Only one unfree image is enough to illustrate this fictional character. The article on Xandir already uses Image:Xandircr.jpg- Abu Badali 14:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it official Wiki policy that only one image can be used to illustrate a fictional character? Dionyseus 09:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should as many as necessary for doing so. In this case, one is enough. (of course, this is only for unfree images) --Abu Badali 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --DrBat 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on that, DrBat? One argument is worth a thousand silent votes. Voice your thoughs. --Abu Badali 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about you elaborate on why you think only one image is enough in this case? No one had a problem with those images except for you, in fact you seem to have a problem with all unfree images. Dionyseus 05:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a problem with all unfree images seems to be a reasonable position to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia, after all. —Bkell (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ways he goes about it is the problem, instead of replacing fair use images with free versions, he simply tags them for deletion. As long as a free alternative is not available, there's nothing wrong with using fair use images. Dionyseus 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Item #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says "No free equivalent is available or could be created...".
Yes I can elaborate: Item #3 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.". Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keywords are "if one will serve the purpose adequately." You did not have concensus to remove these images, in fact you did not even attempt to check for concensus. Dionyseus 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One screenshot "will serve the purpose " (that is "to illustrate a fictional character") "adequately". WP:IFD is a concensus gathering page, that I brought the images to after finding some resistence to their removal. Anyway, consensus can't overthrow policy. --Abu Badali 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot make that decision yourself, and you cannot make up policy, there's no policy that says only one image is adequate. We say that in this case one screenshot alone does not serve its purpose adequately for that article. Dionyseus 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These images serve a purpose in their articles, and no free equivalent is available. If someone can find one, great, but right now these images should stay. - Ivan Kricancic 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Xandirbed.jpg deleted -- this one served no real purpose, as an image already exists in the infobox to show what the character looks like.
Image:Xandirteacozy.jpg not deleted -- this image demonstrates the gay stereotypes that are discussed in the article section that it illustrates.

--howcheng {chat} 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Lupino (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Scopolamine.png Fritz S. (Talk) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by DanielHolth (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Make a tangram.svg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Template:Chess diagram. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Brian Brockmeyer (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Media photo, not acceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a suitable replacement Image:Larry Coker Miami.jpeg and orpaned the photo in question. --MECU≈talk 17:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyright violation just as well. The Terms of Service link says "No Materials may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, transmitted distributed in any way...". --Abu Badali 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this image with Image:Larrycoker bw mediaguide.jpg, which is taken from Miami's media guide and obviously qualifies for fair use. (Incidentally, it looks like it's the same original photo - just a black and white version of it.) BigDT 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is "obviously qualifies for fair use". It's surely not a {{promophoto}} for the same reason as the previous one isn't: The source site's Terms of Use explictly says "No Materials may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, transmitted distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only...". The terms of use is always the key to determine either one image is a promotional image (intended for use and distribution) or it is simply part of the "content" of the site (intended for personal use). --Abu Badali 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think a media guide is? BigDT 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to Media guide, pretty much a Sports Press kit, what makes that copyright statement on the terms of service pretty odd. Discussion on this continues bellow. --Abu Badali 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mbradley (notify | contribs). OR, AB, OB by Image:Bluecat5A.jpg. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mbradley (notify | contribs). OR, AB, OB by Image:Bluecat5A.jpg. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by WikiDon (notify | contribs). OR, lacks source, OB by Image:Reykjavík.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of Fair Use. Use of a picture that is copyrighted for limited reasons. Use of a picture of Larry Coker on an article about Larry Coker definately fits this criteria. It isn't as black & white as the TOS state you cannot use anything except for personal use. --MECU≈talk 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting the fair use claim as a whole, but only the {{promotional}} tag. If you can't copy, reproduce, republish, etc... it's not {{promotional}}. --Abu Badali 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't you have listed it as a copyright problem or fixed the problem and not put it up for deletion? I think it is still a promophoto since it's from the official athletics website, in an article/page about the coach that is used to promote the coach. But I don't have a problem with another tag. What do you suggest? --MECU≈talk 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Twtunes (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:MWpanorama.gif. — Wwagner 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uploaded by Jndrline (notify | contribs). OB by Commons image Image:AmericaAfrica.png, only remaining use is uploader's "look what I uploaded" gallery. — Wwagner 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also in use by the talk page of Template:African American topics sidebar, where a vote was taken as to the logo that should be chosen to continue on. If Wikipedia stores the entire history of an article, with its thousands of changes, certaintly it should record the history of a logo vote so someone could see what the options were in the past? — <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    
This GIF image is the source of the PNG on the Commons, and it would be good to have the entire history of this image, so I say it should be kept until we have a good way of migrating this into the history of the Commons image. —Bkell (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. Important part of PNG file history. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Caracas1830 (notify | contribs). Claimed {{Promophoto}}, but the image comes from the archives of a newspaper, and thus fails the fifth fair-use counterexample. This image has previously been tagged with {{bookcover}}, {{HistoricPhoto}}, and {{Non-free fair use in|Carlos Cruz-Diez}}. —Bkell (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the fair use tag and rationale, which is the correct tagging. I do not know why User:Caracas2000 changed the tagging to Promophoto when it is not a promo photo; he did that out of his own will. The first tagging bookcover was a mistake, the second tagging was disputed (historic photo) so I changed it to the one that seems to be correct one (fair use, (very) low resolution, historical significant person, no free alternative). Cruz-Diez is an iconic person (definition: a person regarded as a representative symbol) because he is currently the most famous living artist from Venezuela and an internationally recognized icon in Kinetic art. No other free alternative photo is available on wikipedia commons. (Caracas1830 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Regardless of the fair-use tag you use, this image is still in violation of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, because it falls under the fifth fair-use counterexample. —Bkell (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Also fails WP:FUC #1 -- the man is alive so a free alternative could be created. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Themanwithoutapast (notify | contribs). Compare this to a picture of a chair on a copyrighted book cover. It is in fact not "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." It mearly comments that the image on the front of it is an american flag burning. Such an image could be replaced with a free alternative, esspecially given the turmoil in the world there's bound to be a free image at some protest of an american flag burning. As such, it violates the fair use criteria, and its rationale isn't given. In fact, no rationale can be had at this time for the image, and the image being used in a particular article for a long time means little on wikipedia if it violates our image policies, which makes it very much subject to deletion unless a valid use for the image can be found. --Kevin_b_er 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Compare this to a picture of a chair on a copyrighted book cover." If the book were, say, "My Mother's Life", and showed her favourite chair as a symbol of the subject, I would not call it fair use. If the book were called "Chairs: a history of", I would call it fair use on our chair article. I feel book covers are inherently promotional: where the subject clearly and obviously relates to the cover, and the book is used in the references, I think them acceptable.
In sum, Revel's cover of a book on "Anti-Americanism" is acceptable to me in our discussion of "Anti-Americanism". If there is more precise wording about this in policy contradicting this, I have no problem--I certainly don't want to be on the wrong side of image policy, but, denigrated as it is fair use can be rationalized. Marskell 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using the cover of a book called "Chairs: a history of" would be appropriate to illustrate an article on the book or maybe even an article on the author, but it would NOT be appropriate to illustrate chairs in general unless the photo or book itself is iconic. In this case, if this book is iconic or represents a definitive work on the subject of Anti-Americanism, then it is appropropriate to have a picture of it. Otherwise, you are just using it as a stock photo of a burning American flag and it serves a purely decorative purpose. Think of fair use like this - you can use John's work for commentary on John or on the work itself. You cannot use John's work for commentary on Bob. BigDT 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic would certainly be a stretch, but isn't Revel definitive on this subject? I think this is the best known book on Anti-Americanism, and ranks at 80000 on Amazon. (Although for my argument to make more sense, we should discuss the book at length where at present we have it in the references). Marskell 07:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the point, the book isn't being discussed or critically commented on, which it must be for a copyrighted image so that we use it for fair use. Otherwise its just 'decoration' (even though quite appropreate in it that it displays a symbol of antiamericanism and book's title name is that too) Did she coin the term with that book? That would be a major thing to discussion about the book. Kevin_b_er 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. A classic example of WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #2. Also, it's unused anywhere, so it's an orphaned fair use image. howcheng {chat} 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by BigDT (notify | contribs). CV. source site's Terms of Use explictly says "No Materials may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, transmitted distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only...".- Abu Badali 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, but CSTV doesn't own the copyright to the University of Miami media guide. That image is from the University of Miami media guide, which is produced by the University of Miami and distributed to the media for the purpose of promoting Miami football in the media. That's the definition of {{promophoto}}. The fact that it is hosted on CSTV's website does not give CSTV the rights to set restrictions on use. The credits in the media guide itself [2] state "The 2006 University of Miami Football Media Guide is a publication of the University of Miami Sports Information Office. Copyright 2006." CSTV does not own the rights to the media guide and thus their terms of service are irrelevant. Further, even if they did own rights to it, it is irrelevant what permission they give. Permission is not required for "fair use". BigDT 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "STV doesn't own the copyright" for this image, than the source information must be fixed. And again, I'm not constesting the fair use claim as a whole. I'm just contesting the use of the {{promophoto}} tag.
But, according to the informations on Media guide (we don't have these on my country) and to this image's description page recent edition, it now seems to me a (rare :) ) valid use of {{Promophoto}} (set aside the Living persons vs WP:FUC#1 issues). If anyone reviewing this case believes the image is now properly tagged, you may remove the if tag and ifd nomination and I won't consider this vandalism. Thanks for the effort on this issue. --Abu Badali 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 20:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by MEI (notify | contribs). Image is copyvio, copied directly from company's website at mideati.org and is not neccesarily the logo of the company as implied. "Copying or printing materials from this Site is limited solely to noncommercial, personal use, unless otherwise indicated." Strothra 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_September_18&oldid=1138514152"