Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 26
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 May 26)
May 26 edit
Image:Saunders jennifer.jpg edit
- We don't understand which show she starred on but this is a screenshot. —Benjaminso (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sarah_McClendon_and_Bill_Clinton.jpg edit
- Unverifiable sourcing/licensing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- This source also identifies it as an official white house photo. WilyD 14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was
Delete. While I don't doubt that a well written article could demonstrate the need for all three images, as it exists, it certainly does not. All three unfree images in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) are being used for identification, which does fail NFCC 3a & 8; WilyD 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Exploring_hogwarts.jpg & Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg edit
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- - uploaded by Gears_of_War (notify | contribs).
- uploaded by Gears_of_War (notify | contribs).
- Rationaled to "provide an article with a screenshot"; wholly unnecessary usage of copyrighted material, failing WP:NFCC#3a & #8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThe image was uploaded to meet the demand for a screenshot. If this image is deleted the deleter should help find a screenshot for the article, thank you-Gears Of War 12:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentI was refering to the fact that the article creator had asked for a screenshot for the article.Gears Of War 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Image fails #3a, burden is on the uploader to demonstrate that it does not, and they have not done so. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per Gears of War's "keep" vote. "The image was uploaded to meet the demand for a screenshot" is the clearest admission one could get that this is not legitimate fair use and was never meant to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, a small selection of screenshots is perfectly appropriate for an article on a notable video game. Powers T 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. It only is if it is used to illustrate a specific point of analysis made in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean like "Hogwarts is completely explorable with the exceptions of some rooms leading off the Grand Staircase"? Powers T 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably something more along the lines of "Harry, Ron and Hermione descend the Grand Staircase in a crucial plot point of the game, as demonstrated by this image." Since the image is not being used in this context it fails the NFCC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The point being that copyrighted image use must be necessary for the understanding of the article. If the article is wholly comprehensible w/o the introduction of such media, or if the media doesn't increase readers' understanding of the article, it doesn't meet the non-free content criteria as defined by the English Wikipedia policy. An image for the purpose of having images handily doesn't meet muster. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, in a heavily visual medium such as video games or television, a small selection of still images is absolutely essential to the reader's understanding. Information about the game's graphics and visual environment can only be adequately illustrated by images, not by text. Powers T 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then where is that information about "graphics and visual environment"? Talk about it. Analyse it. In the text. Sourced. Is it too much to ask that if you claim you are using an image to illustrate something interesting, then your text should at least say what that interesting something is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly, the article in question remains somewhat inadequate. That just makes the images more important, as they serve to illustrate what the text does not. Once the article is filled out and sourced more than it is now, different screenshots may be selected to better illustrate the specific text. Until then, these do well. Powers T 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it works the other way round. First write your article, then, if and when it turns out the article needs to talk about something that requires visual support, go and get an image for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- First a comment to Cumulus Clouds, if the problem was what the the text under the pix, dont you think we would have changed it by now. Also, I dont understand it when knows what needs to be fixed and then just puts it up for deletion(I would fix it myself if I new what the bloody heck was wrong with it) the same goes for XFDs, for God's sake, if you know what wrong with the article, just fix it and not just put it up for deletion!Gears Of War 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because that picture is fundamentally incompatible with the policy at WP:NFCC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the subject of the article does need visual support. It makes no sense to delete an image that provides information text cannot just because the text that is there doesn't yet specifically reference the image. Powers T 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Information text cannot provide? In most cases that's just an excuse for poor writing skills and analytical laziness. Text can analyse things. If there's something the image is better at showing, at least the text can say what that something is, and link it with the context of the overall discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- First a comment to Cumulus Clouds, if the problem was what the the text under the pix, dont you think we would have changed it by now. Also, I dont understand it when knows what needs to be fixed and then just puts it up for deletion(I would fix it myself if I new what the bloody heck was wrong with it) the same goes for XFDs, for God's sake, if you know what wrong with the article, just fix it and not just put it up for deletion!Gears Of War 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it works the other way round. First write your article, then, if and when it turns out the article needs to talk about something that requires visual support, go and get an image for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly, the article in question remains somewhat inadequate. That just makes the images more important, as they serve to illustrate what the text does not. Once the article is filled out and sourced more than it is now, different screenshots may be selected to better illustrate the specific text. Until then, these do well. Powers T 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then where is that information about "graphics and visual environment"? Talk about it. Analyse it. In the text. Sourced. Is it too much to ask that if you claim you are using an image to illustrate something interesting, then your text should at least say what that interesting something is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, in a heavily visual medium such as video games or television, a small selection of still images is absolutely essential to the reader's understanding. Information about the game's graphics and visual environment can only be adequately illustrated by images, not by text. Powers T 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean like "Hogwarts is completely explorable with the exceptions of some rooms leading off the Grand Staircase"? Powers T 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. It only is if it is used to illustrate a specific point of analysis made in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, graphics are a very significant aspect of most video games. No image is theoretically indispensable in an absolute sense -- any graphic can be described in natural language -- but the significance here is more than enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. (Try describing an intricate cell shading mechanism in terms that the typical reader could easily understand.) There is no requirement than a non-free image be explicitly referenced in the text; the connection is obvious enough. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
Image:Massadshirt2006.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Mazkirsheps (notify | contribs).
Image:Talbot3.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Samrackley (notify | contribs).
Image:Irene.JPG edit
- - uploaded by Superflyguys (notify | contribs).
Image:Patsy_Ann_Noble.jpg edit
Image:Hi_way.jpg edit
Image:IndianTrailseal.jpg edit
- - uploaded by WikiMedia457 (notify | contribs).
Image:Plaatje2.png edit
Image:100_8345.jpg edit
- - uploaded by MurtaghxMisery (notify | contribs).
Image:JAW.jpg edit
Image:JustinR.jpg edit
Image:UW-Madison_College_Democrats.jpg edit
Image:TinFoilHat_Superfriends.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Morton_devonshire (notify | contribs).
Image:Business_card_image_small2006.jpg edit
Image:Gastank.jpg edit
- Orphaned and unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gg_RIPecard.png edit
Image:Turkicworldmap.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Aceflooder (notify | contribs).
Image:Philiptrapped.PNG edit
Image:PFA Team of the Year 08.png edit
Image:RobertDeanNelson.jpg edit
Image:Copper coach lava tt.jpg edit
Image:Bulgarian language map.png edit
- Image designed only for POV-pushing for a nationalist fringe view (namely, Macedonian being a form of Bulgarian); orphaned and not useable for NPOV reasons; poorly designed even for the purpose it was made for (as the image doesn't even show the full area of what it claims is its topic.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, it's original research as well. BalkanFever 12:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Karen Carpenter Wedding.jpg edit
- - uploaded by The Obento Musubi (notify | contribs).
- Description page says it's taken from LeadSister.com (image here), but there's no indication on that site that GFDL applies. Powers T 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was
No consensus. While this is a highly unusual result for an IfD, the image is freely licensed, and which image to use in an article is purely an editorial choice. Leaving either image around unused is no big deal, deletion is harder on the server than just leaving it anyhow. WilyD 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Nemanja Vidic.png edit
- - uploaded by Laughing Man (notify | contribs).
- Scaled down and in my opinion inferior version of Image:Nemanja Vidić.jpg Kjetil r (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep the image. This image is better than the other image refered to by the nominator (Kjetil r). If anything, the OTHER image should be deleted, not this one. // laughing man 07:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
other "high-res" image: 
this image: 
- I think it is clear from the image above that the image that has been nominated for deletion is the better quality version for use on Wikipedia. // laughing man 07:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Several users seem to agree with me, as the locally uploaded image has been tagged {{ncd}} three times [1][2][3]. --Kjetil r (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- They might seem to agree with you but your assumption is not accurate. Those users tagged the image as "NowCommons" incorrectly. I've explained to those users that NowCommons is NOT applicable to the image as the image is a bit-for-bit identical copy of the image per CSD I8. They have all agreed to use the higher quality image once they've reviewed the image comparison I've shown you above. // laughing man 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Several users seem to agree with me, as the locally uploaded image has been tagged {{ncd}} three times [1][2][3]. --Kjetil r (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nemanja_Vidic.png&diff=116920697&oldid=116849233){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nemanja_Vidic.png&diff=117744832&oldid=117744742){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nemanja_Vidic.png&diff=144157841&oldid=117758073){kind=link}
- The version that User:Kjetil r has updated by "22:14, May 26, 2008 2,044×2,497 (710 KB) Kjetil r (altering color levels & red saturation)" is his preferred version (obviously). I think it is disrespectful (although the image is creative-commons license) we should not abuse this privilege. The original photographer (Austin Osuide) provided a mid-resolution image that is very suitable for the Nemanja Vidić article on the en.Wikipedia [4]. But please do not alter the original photographers vision. // laughing man 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Color balance aside, there remains the cropping and resolution issues with the version you prefer. Powers T 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Austin Osuide did not provide a mid-resolution image. Images at Flickr are uploaded in full resolution, and the Flickr software automatically scales them down. We always use the high resolution versions at Wikipedia. --Kjetil r (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it's more fair to not use the a full resolution image as it is not necessary for an encyclopedia. What the goals of the Commons are is another story. In any case I still feel very strongly that the original colors should not be altered to your liking, but rather retain what the photographer captured. // laughing man 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The original colors were decided by the camera's microprocessor, as the metadata shows. I would agree with you if the colors / camera settings were deliberately chosen by the photographer, but I (as most active Commons users) am able to set the color balance better than most camera chips. --Kjetil r (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it's more fair to not use the a full resolution image as it is not necessary for an encyclopedia. What the goals of the Commons are is another story. In any case I still feel very strongly that the original colors should not be altered to your liking, but rather retain what the photographer captured. // laughing man 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The version that User:Kjetil r has updated by "22:14, May 26, 2008 2,044×2,497 (710 KB) Kjetil r (altering color levels & red saturation)" is his preferred version (obviously). I think it is disrespectful (although the image is creative-commons license) we should not abuse this privilege. The original photographer (Austin Osuide) provided a mid-resolution image that is very suitable for the Nemanja Vidić article on the en.Wikipedia [4]. But please do not alter the original photographers vision. // laughing man 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
Image:Monday_money.JPG edit
Image:Sherman_pimped_for_formal.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Alastair_Nash (notify | contribs).
Image:Tahir.JPG edit
- - uploaded by Tahir_minhas (notify | contribs).
Image:Ivan_Markanovic.jpg edit
Image:Tehsauce.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Backstreetsback (notify | contribs).
