Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 25 | January 27 > |
|---|
January 26
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Roxie mitchell.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gungadin (notify | contribs | uploads).
- non-free image of an actress (Rita Simons) playing a character. There is no significant difference between the actress and the character (no special costume, makeup etc). A free image of the actress that could be created today would be functionally indistinguishable from this copyrighted image. It is clearly replaceable with a free alternative and fails WP:NFCC#1. Note that before I nominated this image I have looked through published images of Rita Simmons - for many of the quality images there is no difference between her in or out of character. Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We had the same thing with an image of Ringo Brown where the image was kept after at least three extensive discussions after it was deemed that the only possible free image that could replace it was of the actor actually portraying the role (which is impossible to do as nobody is allowed on set during filming) and I believe the same applies here. Secondly, there is a difference - aside from the fact that all characters have special costumes and makeup that the actors are highly unlikely to wear themselves, Roxy Mitchell wears hair extensions whereas Rita Simons does not. AnemoneProjectors 11:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per anemone projectors. Using a screenshot to portray a fictional character is fairuse under wiki policy. It's am article about a fictional character being illustrated with an image of that fictional character and as EastEnders actors are not permitted to appear as there characters in any other format other than on eastnerders, finding a free replacement of the character' is not possible.GunGagdinMoan 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see arguements above that effectively (see WP:NFCC#8) assert that reader's understanding of the topic would be significantly impaired by seeing an actress without her hair extensions ? Those two arguments are very weak. All non-free images hosted here must significantly increase reader's understanding above that which could be provided either by a free image, no image at all, text or something else. I see news articles often that talk about a character but use an image of the actor out of character. I've never felt that my understanding of the fictional character was thus significantly harmed.....perhaps others need more visual stimulation ? - Peripitus (Talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, you are so right, definitely more visual stimulation required and it's refreshing that you can admit this might be the case. Seeing Rita Simons strutting around in her prada and make-up is not Roxy with her cheap make-up and cavvy hair extensions. Unless of course you are being sarcastic? But surely you wouldnt stoop to such a level because other people disagree with you. No, I will go ahead and assume good faith.GunGagdinMoan 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepAs per Anemone Projectors. An image of the actress taken whilst filming the role would not be the same because it would still be a picture of the actress. Besides it would be impossible as EastEnders do not allow people on set--5 albert square (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per all keeps, there is a differance between fictional character and actor. To suggest otherwise is a little odd, shall we use pictures of George Clooney and put a caption under it saying "This is Batman". He plays the character just like Rita plays Roxy. Rita is not Roxy. I'd also add that Rita looks little like saucy old Roxy in real life. I suppose you can aquire an image of Roxy on set if we go and break the law by tresspass, breaking and entering.. so on. So I'd say, the law is on our side for the "non free image here.."RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the images conveys little information beyond the appearance of the actress, which can be freely obtained, hence fails nfcc 1 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect: the actress does not look like that on a day-to-day basis. The image conveys the appearance of the character, not the actress, and a free image of a fictional character is not possible to obtain. –AnemoneProjectors– 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One can simply use a free image of the actress and explain the differences using gfdl text Fasach Nua (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rafti3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rafti Institute (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned userphoto. Kelly hi! 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PSN Map.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ffgamera (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Now on commons as File:Carte monde PSN.png. Going through FFD because it doesn't seem worth the effort of moving over all 5 version of the file to commons, as is required by F8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Late roman army.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrei nacu (notify | contribs | uploads).
- see my reasoning immediately above at #File:PSN Map.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Late West Roman army.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrei nacu (notify | contribs | uploads).
- see my reasoning immediately above at #File:PSN Map.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bodil locket.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SalemFuchs (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unnecessary non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. We don't need this specif grainy movie-screenshot of a picture of a dog on a necklace to understand the information that this zoophile wore a remembrance of her first lover. Damiens.rf 19:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Brownschickenmass lg.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StarScream1007 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unnecessary non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. A picture of a police car in front of a building is of no help in understanding an article about a massacre. Also, it seems the image comes from a newssource, what makes it a WP:NFCC#2 violation. Damiens.rf 19:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ChuckGobbler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Boycool42 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Non-free TV screenshot for episode infobox. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed for understanding the article (which is mostly an unstructured and poorly written plot renarration). Fails NFCC#8, like so many previous cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image depicts two main guest stars: one being the episode's namesake; the other being the season's villain doing the most notable act of the episode, revealing for the first time the season's major MacGuffin, in the most notable plot point of the episode. It is the gist of the entire article and it basically explains the entire plot (which I am trying to improve). It seems inconsistent that a notable image like this is up for deletion when articles such as those for every single South Park episode have an image and very few of them actually depict a significant scene in their respective episodes. --Boycool (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely right that the South Park practice is setting a bad example; it is one of those popular series whose image use has unfortunately so far escaped scrutiny. However, an "otherstuffexists" argument still carries no weight, and it is a fact that images like this have been deleted by the dozens as a matter of routine, always for the same NFC reasons. Standing practice here at FFD is that it is not sufficient that the image depicts a scene that is important in the plot. It must illustrate a visual detail that is explicitly commented upon, such that the visual illustration is necessary to understand the comment in the text. That is not the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the scene was commented on in reviews of the episode, about it being violent for the show, taken from an odd angle, etc.. Could the image be used to illustrate some of those comments? --Boycool (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that sounds as if it might work. If you can get sourced analytical commentary of that type, you'd have a much better case for an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, would the image have to be moved to the "critical response" section? --Boycool (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal recommendation is that this may be preferable, because it more directly aids the reader in understanding the relevance of the picture for the text, but I don't think there is a general consensus that it would be obligatory to do so. If you leave it in the infobox, there should be a well-designed caption that establishes the link somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made changes to the article now. Is it good enough now? --Boycool (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I think this is a big improvement, both to the article in general and to the NFC issue. As far as I am concerned I wouldn't object to a keep on this basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made changes to the article now. Is it good enough now? --Boycool (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal recommendation is that this may be preferable, because it more directly aids the reader in understanding the relevance of the picture for the text, but I don't think there is a general consensus that it would be obligatory to do so. If you leave it in the infobox, there should be a well-designed caption that establishes the link somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, would the image have to be moved to the "critical response" section? --Boycool (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that sounds as if it might work. If you can get sourced analytical commentary of that type, you'd have a much better case for an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the scene was commented on in reviews of the episode, about it being violent for the show, taken from an odd angle, etc.. Could the image be used to illustrate some of those comments? --Boycool (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely right that the South Park practice is setting a bad example; it is one of those popular series whose image use has unfortunately so far escaped scrutiny. However, an "otherstuffexists" argument still carries no weight, and it is a fact that images like this have been deleted by the dozens as a matter of routine, always for the same NFC reasons. Standing practice here at FFD is that it is not sufficient that the image depicts a scene that is important in the plot. It must illustrate a visual detail that is explicitly commented upon, such that the visual illustration is necessary to understand the comment in the text. That is not the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image depicts two main guest stars: one being the episode's namesake; the other being the season's villain doing the most notable act of the episode, revealing for the first time the season's major MacGuffin, in the most notable plot point of the episode. It is the gist of the entire article and it basically explains the entire plot (which I am trying to improve). It seems inconsistent that a notable image like this is up for deletion when articles such as those for every single South Park episode have an image and very few of them actually depict a significant scene in their respective episodes. --Boycool (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 March 9. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The copyright status of the cover image provided seems ambiguous at best, and considering that this has come down to a free/non-free discussion (and probably should have been brought up at WP:PUF instead of here), it seems most prudent to err on the side of caution and delete the image, without prejudice against re-upload by any user or restoration by any admin should the copyright status be confirmed with absolute certainty. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TCO (notify | contribs | uploads).
- copyright suspect (book is PD, but date of cover is unknown) TCO (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the cover appears to be of the 1911 edition. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The given link does not appear to support this, on what basis do you believe this to be the 1911 edition? Fasach Nua (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be a problem with your browser. The link I gave shows a scan of the 1911 edition's cover, and offers downloads of the book in a variety of formats. The cover is identical to this image.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I know it's just a small indication but if you rightclick on the image and hit properties, abebooks labels it original coverTCO (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image TCO is talking about refers to this. As I've said on TCO's talk page, that appears to be a copy that has its original dust jacket. Many books of that era had a reduced, monochromatic version of the illustrated cover etched into the binding. The size and movement of the person on both this image and the Abe books dust jacket are identical.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The image has the text "Cover image for Stover at Yale" in the metadata, it is not labeled "original cover", as far as I can tell the 1911 publication indicates the text not the image, and the image is not included in the pdf Fasach Nua (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, Manybooks.net is reputable and the cover listed respects copyright and corresponds to that edition. Given that the dust jacket cover shown on AbeBooks is identical, I see no reason to doubt that the image is indeed the cover of the 1911 edition, and falls in the public domain.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- If verifiable proof is obtained that this image is PD, and not just simple supposition, this image would be a valued addition to the project, however that has yet to be providedFasach Nua (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what further proof you're looking for. Multiple reliable sites show this image in the context of the 1911 edition, and searching the U.S. copyright office yields nothing. Do you have any verifiable proof that this particular image is not in the public domain, that it's the cover of a later edition and that copyright exists?
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The burden of proof is with those making the assertion that the image is PD to WP:PROVEIT, we do not start from the position that all images on the internet are the 1911 cover of this book unless definitive proof is provided otherwise Fasach Nua (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already said, Manybooks and Abebooks present this image as the cover of the 1911 edition. SunCreator pointed to a cache of images on Manybooks that are clearly reproductions of the original covers. I don't know what further proof you're looking for (I could easily say, "I went to a local library and found a 1911 copy of Stover at Yale that had this cover."), but if multiple reliable sources show this art in the context that it's the 1911 cover – and I haven't seen any other image presented as a possible alternative cover – then I'm inclined to believe that this is indeed the 1911 cover.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already said, Manybooks and Abebooks present this image as the cover of the 1911 edition. SunCreator pointed to a cache of images on Manybooks that are clearly reproductions of the original covers. I don't know what further proof you're looking for (I could easily say, "I went to a local library and found a 1911 copy of Stover at Yale that had this cover."), but if multiple reliable sources show this art in the context that it's the 1911 cover – and I haven't seen any other image presented as a possible alternative cover – then I'm inclined to believe that this is indeed the 1911 cover.
- The burden of proof is with those making the assertion that the image is PD to WP:PROVEIT, we do not start from the position that all images on the internet are the 1911 cover of this book unless definitive proof is provided otherwise Fasach Nua (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what further proof you're looking for. Multiple reliable sites show this image in the context of the 1911 edition, and searching the U.S. copyright office yields nothing. Do you have any verifiable proof that this particular image is not in the public domain, that it's the cover of a later edition and that copyright exists?
- If verifiable proof is obtained that this image is PD, and not just simple supposition, this image would be a valued addition to the project, however that has yet to be providedFasach Nua (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, Manybooks.net is reputable and the cover listed respects copyright and corresponds to that edition. Given that the dust jacket cover shown on AbeBooks is identical, I see no reason to doubt that the image is indeed the cover of the 1911 edition, and falls in the public domain.
- The image TCO is talking about refers to this. As I've said on TCO's talk page, that appears to be a copy that has its original dust jacket. Many books of that era had a reduced, monochromatic version of the illustrated cover etched into the binding. The size and movement of the person on both this image and the Abe books dust jacket are identical.
- I know it's just a small indication but if you rightclick on the image and hit properties, abebooks labels it original coverTCO (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be a problem with your browser. The link I gave shows a scan of the 1911 edition's cover, and offers downloads of the book in a variety of formats. The cover is identical to this image.
- The given link does not appear to support this, on what basis do you believe this to be the 1911 edition? Fasach Nua (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not possible to verify if it is in the public domain, indeed we cannot even verify what it is an image of Fasach Nua (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an image of a book; the title is visible on the cover. It reads "Stover at Yale", along with the author's name. This is also visible on the spine, along with the publisher's name, "McClure Company", at the base of the spine. This is very clearly the 1911 edition, and the artwork is in the public domain.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Excellent! please provide a third party reliable source to support your statement and I will strike my delete Fasach Nua (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's visible on the book's spine. I don't know what other kind of source you're looking for to prove that there is no copyright.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's visible on the book's spine. I don't know what other kind of source you're looking for to prove that there is no copyright.
- Excellent! please provide a third party reliable source to support your statement and I will strike my delete Fasach Nua (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Googling for original editions is leading me to all kinds of in period reviews and even sales reports. Will help my article. this always happens! Get sent off to research and find other stuff that helps a different part. 2. FN was not the bad guy if the image is legit. I really thought I had misbehaved. TCO (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the book covers in this folder look old. This and this are in a similar style. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for FN. BTW, I know you get a lot of grief, so I'm not badgering you, but I do want to understand precisely your points.
1. Do you consider Manybooks to be an RS or not? (It's fine if you think they are not good enough, but I want to know if your object is to the site quality, or just that you have not clicked some of the links given, like the directory of original covers on that site.
2. Is the angled shot an issue? I'm thinking of going to another city (trip) to verify at a library that has the original edition. I don't want to solve that issue and then find my trip in vain if there is an unsolvable issue because the angled shot is disputed. So please give your object now, if there is one.TCO (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on whether Manybooks is a reliable source or not, as it makes no assertions regarding the original publication of this image, I therefore see no reason to research into the providence of the site. I have no issue with the angled image, this was the subject of a previous FFD and I am prepared to accept the outcome of that discussion. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (2.) Thanks!
- (1.) OK. Again, I'm not trying to disagree, just want to make sure that you've looked at the same screens I have, and then just understand the specific objection (honest, I will be fine taking your judgment, this isn't some set-up to pin you down). When I look at this link, http://manybooks.net/original_covers/j/johnsono/ I find this wording at the top of the page, "Index of /original_covers/j/johnsono". When I click on the three files:
johnsonoother05stove..> 21-May-2006 14:28 6k johnsonoother05stove..> 25-Dec-2008 04:02 1k johnsonoother05stove..> 16-May-2006 05:20 45k
...they are all the red book cover. And the site also advertises itself as a repository of "free books". Is that labeling explicit enough assertion? And it's fine if it's not, of if now you look at the site and don't like it. Just want to make sure we've looked at same things and then understand your object. Thanks in advance!TCO (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.