File talk:Aquae Sulis artist impression.jpg

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Replaceable fair use disputed edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image. — ξ ^xplicit 00:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

WP:NFCC#1 states Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The note on my talk page states [...] it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. The difference in wording includes reasonably, which doesn't seem to have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. My dispute regarding inclusion of this file is based on the concept of not being "reasonably" replaced.

I understand that I could try to create a free equivalent myself. But without understanding how to research and interpret the historical records, and without having the necessary artistic skills, I'm not going to be able to do so unless it were to be a derivative of others' works.
Another person also wishing to create a free equivalent would require the same understanding and skills.
Those in possession of such understanding and skills arguably make their living from the creation of such works. Therefore, we seem to be relying on such artist(s) releasing a free version of their work. A reasonable conclusion is that this is a highly unlikely scenario.
If a free equivalent becomes available in the future, it should of course be used instead of this version.

Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

If such an image is particularly valuable because a particular amount of skill and knowledge has to go into making it, that is an additional argument against simply pinching it from its owner, rather than an argument for doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikipedia hosts a large number of non-free images, which generally required a particular amount of skill and knowledge in order for them to be created. But they are all hosted in reduced resolution. I don't classify this image as pinched, although it would be if someone were to print it out and trace over it in order to claim it as their own. The argument remains that such an image as this cannot be reasonably replaced with a free equivalent. -- Trevj (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, it can. You mileage may vary, but let me tell you, this is a routine, open-and-shut case and not worth arguing over. Files like this always get deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if this seems as if I'm making a fuss, but I'm confused. The intial copy of Template:Di-replaceable fair use-notice at 16:58, 6 July 2007 included the word "reasonably". Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria at 06:14, 2 July 2007 didn't. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content at 16:22, 6 July 2007 should provide some helpful information but doesn't seem to. Therefore, when the policy was finalised, I would've thought that the wording in {{Di-replaceable fair use-notice}} ought to have been adjusted accordingly. Is someone please able to explain why the word "reasonably" still exists in that template when it implies something which the policy at WP:NFCC does not permit?

Assuming this discussion to conclude as a routine, open-and-shut case, with consensus on the policy not changing, there would probably be less dispute discussions in future if the template and policy were in accordance with each other. (Has anyone noticed whether this applies to similar notice templates?) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

No further discussion required edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This file has been justifiably deleted. The above discussion serves to explain why. A number of editors have since been commenting/tagging here, neither of which is necessary or helpful. The matter is closed. (Per the usual procedures, any further discussion should be addressed to the deleting admin, closer or taken to deletion review. But such a review stands no chance of being overturned because the file was deleted in accordance with policy.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic