Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28

File:Terminator.ogg

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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the paperwork's been done for this correctly, but I'm not really convinced with the rationale for free use. For me, the description against it in the article is sufficient. Perhaps if Terminator 2 was out of print and very hard to find, I would be more accepting, but it's still widely available and easy to purchase. Putting the video in the middle of a good article also might give the misleading impression to newer Wikipedians that it's okay to rip bits out of old videos and put them online. I'd rather not encourage that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your argument is "I don't want to set a bad example even though the video has been up for months if not a year and it hasn't caused anything of the sort". The 'paperwork' is filled out correctly and it serves the purpose for which it is intended, there is no basis for removing it as a preemptive strike over ANY AND ALL the other videos on the site because you're worried about...what exactly? There's a reason we can upload video and a reason we can justify the use of that video assuming it isn't in the public domain. Oppose, oppose, oppose. EDIT Actually what policy is it violating? Can we not quick close this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, the specific policy is Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy, specifically the sections "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." and "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Just to clarify, removing this image would not stop the article being of good article status in my view, so don't worry about that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't stop it becoming a Good Article either, it isn't something that was added after the fact. It fits the guideline perfectly, your complaint is it might influence others to upload video. That is not a valid complaint. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a sideshow. The real concern is that I don't believe it complies with WP:NFCC#8, as stated above, where I said "For me, the description against it in the article is sufficient.". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning keep). Considering that this video is used in a section about the film's use of special effects, which were state-of-the-art at the time, I think that the video did add a lot to my understanding. (I say that as someone who votes delete in probably most NFCC8 disputes.) However, I think it could probably be reduced from 20 seconds, considering that there are only 5 minutes of special effects in the movie. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep availability of source material has nothing to do with its use on Wikipedia. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that to be strictly the case - since the original work is known to exist, you could negotiate with the copyright holder to release an image or a small section via OTRS. And your comment does not address the main issue of WP:NFCC#8. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what about it's relevance to the in-article text or its use in aiding the understanding of what and how these groundbreaking visual effects were used to create a cutting edge liquid machine of death, do you think is not increasing the readers understanding of the topic? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no I don't. "Groundbreaking" and "Cutting edge liquid machine of death" sounds very much like a fan's point of view. I can read that an effect was critically acclaimed without having to know the frame by frame specifics. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why it only won the BAFTA, Academy and Saturn Awards for its special effects. Have you seen the film? Because the only reason you can be blasé about it is that you've seen it and so already know what the effect looks like, and are just uninterested in educating others on it. If you're telling me that you can read the text and, without having seen the film, can visualise what the in-film effect is, you are at best being somewhat partially marginally potentially inadvertently dishonest. Cameron's work is frequently noted for essentially inventing new techniques and using the latest technology to achieve special effects in the film and they WERE cutting edge for the time. If all these things do not justify this clip or make it notable, then every piece of media on here is violating NFC8 and the whole place needs blanking. And requiring people to go purchase a copy of the film to compare to the article text is not an acceptable compromise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinions, but I think we just need to take a deep breath and wait for consensus now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far from setting a bad example, I think the article sets a good example of how to use non-free media. The special effects were notable and they received a lot of attention at the time; they are the subject of sourced commentary, which would more or less just be babble to a reader who has not seen the film. It's proper for the article to cover this aspect of the topic, and the nature of the special effect would be difficult to convey without the use of a visual aid. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (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.

File:The Man With The Devil's Hand book cover.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and it also violates WP:NFCC#10c in one of the articles. Cover illustrations are almost never allowed outside the article about the book. However, it is not used in the article about the book. Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is used in a bibliography section on Franciszek Rychnowski thus failing WP:NFCI, one sentence saying Michał Sędziwój is the main character in the book violating WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c and there is no article about the book to put the image in. Aspects (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2013 (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.

File:WWTBAM US S9 Rd2 Jump.png

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 ⚡ 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File does not provide any additional understanding for the text to which it is related. A screen shot of a contestant using the "Jump the Question" lifeline from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) is not required to understand already-comprehensive detail in the Current lifelines section. AldezD (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator: I don't know the current version of the show, and while the lifeline's description in the article is reasonably clear, the screenshot added nothing. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2013 (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.

File:Wind at my Back Christmas DVD.jpg

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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to File:Wind at my Back DVD cover.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is for the Christmas movie special, which is reasonably distinct and contextually significant, vis a vis the series as a whole. One does not replace the other. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This second provides no new information, readers will still be able to understand that a Christmas DVD was released without the image, making this image also fail WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 5 February 2013 (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.

File:June Peppas.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a baseball card being used to illustrate the player, not the card. This is an example of unacceptable use of non-free content as indicated by WP:NFC#UUI point 8. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (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.

File:WAClimates.jpg

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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was deleted as likely not self-created, but its author has responded as follows (when he was not able to view the image): " You disputed that I created the map of Western Australian climates from Scratch using Powerpoint. This is possible - as powerpoint allows maps to be created - I have used it for many maps I have uploaded into the web. The maps are created using the polygon tool in powerpoint with the various colours created as overlays. As a powerpoint it is then saved as a jpeg file which I have then uploaded. I hope this explains the method I have used. I would appreciate it if this satisfies you that you withdraw the map from deletion." I still do not believe that this map could be created in powerpoint (look at how complex it is), though perhaps the words "predominantly summer rainfall" and "predominantly winter rainfall" were overlaid on a preexisting basemap. I restored the image for the purpose of this discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear as something Powerpoint does. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2013 (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.

File:Arena promo screenshot.jpg

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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low res non-free file. It was used on an article that is now merged and has no purpose. Also, it is unnecessary provided that the main vidoe game article has better images. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged this as CSD#F5, which would have been done by a bot anyway because the file's not being used any more. If no one finds a legitimate reason to reinclude it somewhere, then my understanding is that the file can be deleted uncontroversially. -- Trevj (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2013 (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.

File:Brian's Got a Brand New Bag - Family Guy promo.png

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 ⚡ 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not pass WP:NFCC, which states that non-free content should only be used if it would increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's common practice to use a screenshot in articles about shows. I haven't seen a show so I don't know if a better screenshot exists, but the current one is acceptable until that time. Ryan Vesey 23:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I am incorrect. Ryan Vesey 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I disagree, but that is just my opinion. Images are only used in articles about shows or anything if it would increase the readers' knowledge of the subject, as I stated in my nomination. There was a discussion at Talk:Say Hello to My Little Friend#Non-free content, which is an article about a television episode, as is this. In this case, it is not clear that any of the images are really adding all that much to the article and it would probably not be any weaker without them. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a random photo of two of the main characters from the TV series. If you want to know what they look like, you can read the article about the characters instead. Violates WP:NFCC#8. See {{Infobox television episode}}: "There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode." --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree wiht rationale by Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping the image does not pass WP:NFCC, which states they are only used in articles about shows or anything if it would increase the readers' knowledge of the subject, as I stated in my nomination. There was a discussion at Talk:Say Hello to My Little Friend#Non-free content, which is an article about a television episode, as is this. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to what Ryan Vesey asserts, there is not and has never been a blanket allowance for a non-free screenshot for every episode of a show (even though persistent efforts by many editors to push such images into as many episodes as they can might lead one to believe there was.) The well-established consensus at FFD, confirmed by literally hundreds of precedents, is that every single case of such an image needs to be individually justified by the usual NFCC#8 criteria, and this one clearly fails the test. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, from the number of articles I've seen containing them I made an assumption that was apparently incorrect. I would argue that every show should be allowed a screenshot under fair use, but that's a discussion for another time and another place. Ryan Vesey 18:06, 29 January 2013 (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.