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 Speedy delete
as blatant advertising. --Hut 8.5 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. nneonneotalk 21:49, 12 August 2008 (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 rationale does not explain how the use will not effect commercial gain or declare why it cannot be replaced by a freely licensed image. ViperSnake151 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though fair use needs to be updated, that is not a reason for deletion. Simply showing the statue/trophy for purposes of identification is appropriate in this instance.— BQZip01 —talk 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image is from a copyrighted source and, as such, cannot be used if a free alternative is available. I have replaced the image with the one suggested by Cumulus Clouds below. Since the image is also now orphaned, it has to go completely, unless a use can be found for such an image. — BQZip01 —talk 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, I've updated the fair use rationale. Music2611 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) If there's a free alternative, we should use it. --Music26/11 06:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted audio sample, exceeds fair use at 3:28 minutes. Sandstein 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fair Use sound sample should not exceed 30 seconds. JGHowestalk - 23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete: There is a GNUFDL version on Commons of Pachelbel's Canon: [1], so no utility for this file. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, RFU, because its a rendition of a public domain piece. ViperSnake151 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, user has not been active in months, so we cannot determine the image's intent, and there is no Quantico Yacht Club article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, user has not been active in months, so we cannot determine the image's intent, and there is no Quantico Yacht Club article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, user has not been active in months, so we cannot determine the image's intent, and there is no Quantico Yacht Club article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - it has beeen long enough and the OTRS email is not yet forthcoming. If it does come through the image can be undeleted/re-uploaded and correctly marked then - Peripitus(Talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
scan of artwork by john wood (doesn't seem to be the uploader) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Wood does not hold the copyright to this work; anthropologist and enthnohistorian Raymond Evans does; he commissioned the work. Ray's the author of several of the works I've used as sources, and it was he who gave me the copy of the print specifically for the purpose of scanning it onto my computer to upload to Wikipedia. Had Ray been adept enough with a computer and not been on dial-up, I would have told him to do it, but as brilliant as Ray is with historical and archaeological research, his computer literacy is limited nor he does he have a scanner. So you can count this as an objection to this image's deletion.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably add that Ray's not just a casual qcquaintance; I'm his field assistant. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the Wikimedia Foundation needs OTRS verification from Mr. Evans that he: (a) is the copyright holder; (b) freely licenses this image for use by others, including commercial for-profit use. If you're unfamiliar with the procedure, my user-friendly OTRS example may be helpful. JGHowestalk - 23:58, 15 August 2008 (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.
no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User cannot release permissions for something that isn't his/hers. OTRS verification would certainly make me change my mind though. Contact my talk page if you need assistance to do this. — BQZip01 —talk 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image fails NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly add to readers understanding. Compared to other images in the two articles using it, it is simply decorative and fails the fair-use requirements - Peripitus(Talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excellent points. — BQZip01 —talk 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--SRX 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Claimed as "historic image", but no historical significance of the scene shown, let alone the image as such, is being described or even hinted at in the article (Scouting in the Federated States of Micronesia). Clearly replaceable with a free photograph of a present-day scout group. Image is not the subject of discussion in the article; even if it were, it doesn't convey any visual information that an image of a present-day group couldn't convey just as well. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I can easily argue for the "historicity" of a photograph that depicts a Boy Scout troop in a Japanese internment camp during World War II, or a Girl Scout troop in a similar situation, this one is harder to judge "historical." It depicts nothing of significance, other than a few young girls in girl scout uniforms. The fact that it is 33 years old doesn't in itself make it "historical." I looked through Flickr's free "Micronesia" images, and there are 163 in all. While none currently depict a girl scout troop, it is entirely within rhe realm of possibility (even quite plausible) that someone may upload a free image that could replace the current one. Therefore, as the image is not historical, and is eminently replaceable, I recommend deletion of this image. S.D.Jameson 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the image fails NFCC#8. Omitting it would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200ptalk 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one fails NFCC clearly. — BQZip01 —talk 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a retaliatory IfD for me calling User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on his improprieties earlier in the week. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusatory remarks; this discussion is about the media, not the nominator. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Kintetsubuffalo has also been canvassing disruptively, with accusatory and biased notifications to the partisan audience of his wikiproject [2]. And actually, believe it or not: I was going randomly through a category of claimed "historic images" and picked the first few blatant misuse cases (together with the others below, from totally different topic areas). I had no idea it was K's upload until after I had decided to nominate it. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently failing WP:NFCC#1 per nomination. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:50, 16 August 2008 (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.
Fails NFCC#1+8: Snapshot of a person caught in a compromising situation that earned him some notoriety. The person is only seen from the back; the fact that made the image notorious (that he was leaving a gay bar) is not seen on the image at all. No piece of visual information in this image is important to understand the article; in fact, everything that the image presumably represents not only can but must be expressed in the text, because the image doesn't contribute to understanding it at all. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fut.Perf.. I believe the analysis of the failure of NFCC is correct. -Nv8200ptalk 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a low-quality, from behind, low information photograph, this is an easy call. There is absolutely nothing crucial to the article conveyed by this photograph. But for the caption, we wouldn't know who this is or where he is at, so I say we should delete. S.D.Jameson 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see a use for this image in Paulk's article, but only if a reliable source could be found for it (a simple name for the copyright holder is insufficient). In its current usage, it needs to go. — BQZip01 —talk 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Image meets all WP:NFCC requirements for inclusion; specifically in the following articles: HMS Conqueror (S48): image is of her return to port after being the first nuclear-powered submarine to fire in anger and sink an enemy ship; Churchill class submarine: most famous of the class, image is from her return to port, signaling the kill that made her famous; British naval forces in the Falklands War: significant member of this force, sunk the only ship ever to have been sunk by a nuclear-powered submarine. Additionally, there is special significance to the use of the Jolly Roger by submarines. A photo of another boat (even if similar) will not suffice. These three articles are more than sufficient to keep the image on Wikipedia, inclusion in any other article needs to be judged by consensus and policy on those individual articles. Dreadstar† 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photograph of an historic British submarine, taken at an historic moment (the submarine is coming back from the Falklands War after having sunk an Argentinian cruiser). However, it fails NFCC#8 in that it makes no actual contribution, as an image, to understanding what it claims to represent. Editors who have been defending it as an "historic image" make a very typical mistake: they confuse the historical importance of a situation with the practical importance of an image for understanding it. This photograph may, for them, have symbolic importance in "representing" the notable historic situation; for the reader who isn't already familiar with the case, it represents nothing. There is no visual information in this image that actually helps the reader to understand the situation it is associated with. Anything this image is claimed to stand for has to be first explained to the reader through text before he can even begin to appreciate what it's about; once that is done, the text has rendered the image superfluous.
Apart from the symbolic historical significance, illustration of the concrete physical appearance of the submarine doesn't constitute grounds for keeping, since it could be replaced with free images of identical sister ships, and/or with an existing image that shows it at a later date, after its decommissioning.
It has additionally been claimed that a tiny visual detail makes it crucial: it is argued that the submarine is flying a "Jolly Roger" flag as a sign of its "kill". However, this detail is hardly visible on the image at all; it can still be adequately explained and covered by text alone; and the significance of that detail (which some British marine insider editors seem to think an awful lot of) is currently entirely unsourced and original research. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, but it seemed like the most appropriate place. Removing a bunch of images and then claiming the image is orphaned really rubs people the wrong way. Nominating it for deletion first and then cleaning it up after a deletion seems to work best and results in better acrimony amongst Wikipedians. Just my — BQZip01 —talk 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called replacement picture Image:Warspiteconquerorvaliant.jpg is a great picture for Ships Cemetery or Disarmament articles - not for the only nuclear submarine which sank a ship in wartime. I am neither an Argentinean nor a Briton so I'm pretty neutral. Please insert Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg again. The other picture is like illustrating John F. Kennedy's article with his tomb stone. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an image of what the submarine physically looked like, go and take a free photo of its identical sister ship, which is apparently a well-preserved museum ship somewhere in Britain. It's not as if any visual difference between the two would be significant for the article, would it? And you are still making that logical mistake: "being the only nuclear submarine which sank a ship in wartime" is not something you can illustrate anyway, so why quote it as an argument here? You want to treat image-worthiness as a function of how important the object of the image is. That's not how NFCC#8 works. We don't include images because they are somehow associated with something important, we include them if and where they teach us something, concrete, visual, about it. This one doesn't. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that argument is completely and utterly ridiculous, "shove in any old image of the same type of submarine and that'll do" seems to be what you're arguing. Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or not? That image is iconic and illustrates a significant event, its there to educate the reader and does so. Justintalk 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need to remove it from the articles mentioned, it was a perfectly justifiable use in accordance with wikipedia policies. It was removed and continued to be removed in spite of objections by other editors, clearly a consensus had not been reached.
The image in question documents a historical event; namely the return of HMS Conqueror from the Falklands War. HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear submarine to have ever sunk a warship in a conflict and so the event is notable of its right for that alone. The event is further notable because the sinking of the ARA Belgrano resulted in the withdrawal of the Argentine navy from further participation in the war. The event is also notable because it is credited with ending peace efforts as Argentina used the event as a pretext to withdraw from further talks aimed at preventing the war.
The tiny detail referred to is the flying of a Jolly Roger. The flying of such a flag is a traditon of the Royal Navy submarine service that dates from the first world war (when all submariners were branded pirates). As HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear submarine and only the second submarine since World War 2 to have sank a warship this is again a unique event for which no other image can be used. Merely covering this in the text alone does not adequately describe it in context; that is provided by the image. The flying of the flag also re-inforces certain South American stereotypes that describe the British as "piratas", and is frequently commented upon in Argentina. None of this is original research, [3] provides plenty of examples as to why this is a unique event.
The image is used in part to illustrate the Royal Navies contribution to the Falklands War. It is simply unbelievable that one of the pivotal events in the Falklands War is not an iconic moment or worthy of inclusion in an article about the Royal Navies contribution to the Falklands War. This image is necessary for that purpose, it has been more than adequately justified and clearly satisfies NFCC#8 as it is a significant iconic image that enhances readers appreciation of the topic. It also satisfies NFCC#1 as no free equivalent is available; HMS Conqueror is now decommissioned and the event rather obviously will not be repeated. Justintalk 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? That contribution is close to zero. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no that is your opinion and as someone once said to me, strongly held opinions do not triumph over wikipedia policies. A rationale has been provided, its an iconic image, its in accordance with wikipedia policies and in my opinion it should stay. You have not provided any concrete evidence to overcome consensus. Clearly the image is there to document a unique event, something that words alone would not convey and the image does so very effectively. Justintalk 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: you need to explain how it contributes. Exactly what is it that it conveys that text couldn't? Name it. Describe it. Simply asserting just won't work. And no, it is not iconic. That, too, would need to be documented, with sourced discussion in the text. The websites that deal with the scene are either Wikipedia mirrors, or non-notable sites such as blogs, or they in fact use different images (same scene but different photograph). If other images can be used for the same scene, that's definitely not what "iconic" is about. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(add) "You wont't get away that easily"? Relax mate, this is about improving coverage of the Falklands War on Wikipedia, not some personal conquest Ryan4314 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me at an image that illustrates the iconic moment when HMS Conqueror returns from the Falklands War, flying the Jolly Roger. All the other images you refer to would be none free content as well and you'd argue against them. Looking at your contribution history all you seem to do is remove NFCC images from wikipedia. It would appear that you have got somewhat mission orientated and don't appear to comprehend you've made a mistake on this occasion. You're pouncing on any contribution that contradicts you with minutes and you seem to be taking people objecting to your actions very personally.
I have set out repeatedly set out for you why the event is unique and iconic, anyone familiar with the Falklands War would agree with my synopsis. If you want to have a citation well online you can check [4], otherwise I'd recommend Hastings, Max; Simon Jenkins (1983). "Chapter 9", The Battle for the Falklands. Bungay, Suffolk: Book Club Associates, p. 147. So instead of simply trying to undermine what I am saying to you, please take a moment and digest the information instead of looking for avenues to attack and undermine me.
It is utterly iconic image for the Falklands War, its one of a number of images that are so and when I created the Montage for Falklands War I used it in one of the prototypes I put together. If you're unfamiliar with the war then I suggest you should think about respecting the contribution of editors who've made significant contributions to these articles and who are very familiar with the material and are looking to work towards helping readers achieve a better understanding of the conflict. Justintalk 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? (By the way, if that museum you point to has the "jolly roger" on permanent display, you could go there and take a free photo of the Jolly Roger. Wouldn't that be a much better way of illustrating the scene?). And you still haven't illustrated how the photograph is iconic. If it was, wouldn't that museum be showing it? (Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while.) Fut.Perf.☼ 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you just don't seem to get it, I've been arguing about the contribution of the image all along. You can assert I'm not doing that all you like but that doesn't change the fact that's what I've been doing. And for the record my comments were not a personal attack, I have a very real concern that you lack perspective on this. You seem to be very goal orientated but forgetting the bigger picture; wikipedia is co-operative enterprise and about producing an online encyclopedia. I'm merely expressing a concern and suggesting that you step back and think a little more before acting that is all. Justintalk 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the existence of other photos was questioned: Here's just five of them [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], all of them used by various web sources in alternation with ours. Mind you, my point is not that these would be free replacements for ours (they are probably copyrighted just the same); my point was that none of these has any special status, as a photograph, that makes it particularly memorable and "iconically" associated with the event. A memorable scene, yes, an iconic photograph, no. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you'd asked I could have told you exactly where that photograph came from, its an official Royal Navy photograph and all the photos you've turned up are part of the same sequence. The image in question is FKD 13 from the Imperial War Museum collection, in fact if you check the IWM collection the entire sequence you've unearthed is available and some more besides. The images are free to use provided copyright is acknowledged. Whilst I'd agree the copyright information could do with being updated that doesn't undermine the argument that the use of this photo is in accordance with wiki policies and it enhances the articles in question. Any of those photos individually could be used but this photograph is iconic, noticeably several of the examples you've shown reproduce the very same photo. It is also reproduced in numerous books on the war. I'm sorry but how do you think that by illustrating the widespread use of this photo in any way supports your argument? Justintalk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are six different photos, none of the ones I linked to is the same. I was pointing to them to show that there isn't any one that is individually iconic, in being individually more firmly entrenched in collective memory than the others. I'm sorry, but I still have the feeling you don't quite realise what "iconic" means. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no they're not six different photos, [10] is a cropped picture from [11] for example, [12] is the same image as the one we're discussing its just cropped, [13] is the next one in the sequence and [14] is just another one in the sequence. Aside from that, noticeably you didn't address the point that whilst anyone could be used but the photo in question is reproduced in numerous books about the war and is an iconic image. I'm sorry but I really do think you're wrong on this issue and you don't seem to be listening to other editors. Justintalk 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a very minor point, but just for the record, no, you are mistaken, they are six different images, no two of them are the same, look more carefully at the backgrounds. But it's of no big importance. What's important is, in the context of Wikipedia fair use debates, the whole talk about "iconic" historical images refers to one very special exceptional situation: those (very few) images that are so famous that they in themselves, as creative works of their photographers, become the focus of encyclopedic discussion. An iconic image is one where you'd want to spend at least a few paragraphs discussing the photograph as such. Not the ship and its actions in the war, but the photographer and his work. Who took the photograph, when and why, how was it published, how did the public react to it, and so on. The photograph, not the ship. It's only this treatment that gives the whole idea of "iconicness" its special status with respect to fair use justifications. There is nothing of that sort in any of the articles here, obviously. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm afraid you're mistaken and they're not six separate images, my point is that all can be retrieved from IWM website. You're also continuously changing the rationale to justify deletion. First it was NFCC#1, then it was NFCC#8 and now its quibbling about its iconic status.
Well lets consider that image you suggested the Iwo Jima image. That isn't actually an individual image but one of a series of stills that were taken at the time, with an accompanying film. There is only one image out of that sequence that is considered iconic and widely used. The same applies to this image, its one of a series of images but for whatever reason, this image is repeatedly chosen in books and documentaries about the war. In both cases, why would that image itself be chosen and repeatedly so when in both cases there are plenty to choose from? There are other images of the war that are considred iconic, for example one which I chose to include in my Falklands War montage is that of HMS Antelope exploding. Again an iconic image of the war instantly recognisable to a wide audience but again one of a sequence of images.
Your rationale is also unfairly narrow to define iconic. Certain images become iconic because they are repeatedly used to illustrate a topic such that they become instantly recognisable. A few of these from the Falklands War include the Yomper, HMS Antelope exploding, Belgrano sinking, HMS Sheffield on fire and HMS Conqueror on her return. It is an iconic image for that very reason.
You keep asssering things to be obvious, when to the contrary a number of editors disagree with you. It is nothing of the sort. Justintalk 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A very obvious NFCC #8 violation. This image does not augment the text at all in any way. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The text on the image page is not that helpful, the use of the image in the context of the pages where it was used provide justification. The image does significantly augment the text, without the image the article is no where near as informative. Justintalk 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for use at least at HMS Conqueror (S48) per User:Necessary Evil. The replacement image does not adequately illustrate the HMS Conqueror as it is significantly obscured in the replacement image, and the image that was taken long after the ship was decommissioned. To use a free image of a submarine of the same class in an article that is supposed to be about that particular submarine would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. What we are being asked to do is equivalent to either replacing the fair use images at Kurt Cobain with images of Dave Grohl, or with a partially obscured image of Cobain's grave. That's absurd. Pfainuktalk 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I think it's also fair use on the British naval forces article. An image of a ship returning from the best known and most controversial engagement of the Falklands War clearly illustrates the notability and effect of the British naval forces in that war. Pfainuktalk 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't close. It is such an obvious fair use of the photograph as to be blatant on its face. Fair use demands that the photograph be used only "to illustrate the subject in question", and "where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." These are both very easily fulfilled by this photograph, and thus I recommend keeping it. I also note that one editor feeling that many other editors "misunderstand" what "historical" means does not a very good deletion rationale make. S.D.Jameson 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent policy. Those criteria are neither part of what legal "fair use" is, nor are they part of our NFCC. Your statement is miles away from either. NFCC demands that an image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and that this understanding cannot be imparted in any other way. Nobody has as yet made even the slightest attempt at substantiating how this image does so. Simply claiming that it does won't work. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that anyone who disagrees with you on how to interpret NFCC policy with regards to an image is attempting to "misrepresent policy." You're wrong sometimes, FP. The HMS Conqueror returning from the sinking is historical, for all the reasons outlined in the many comments on the matter. That you choose not to recognize this doesn't matter at all. Hair-splitting semantics is all that could possibly remove the historicity from this photograph. No warship, tank, or any other instrument of war can be separated from the acts it commits. If it commits historical acts, images of it returning from the mission in which it did so are inherently historical. S.D.Jameson 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He might be wrong about everything else, but FP is correct in his interpretation of NFCC. The question isn't whether or not the image is historic. No one is debating that. The question is, is this historic image being used to discuss the historicity, or is it simply used to illustrate the subject? I mentioned the Hand of God goal below. The famous picture with Maradona jumping over Shilton is historic and iconic - there's no question about that. But what makes the use of the photograph in the Wikipedia article fair use is that the article discusses the photograph itself, not just what the photograph illustrates. A similar example is the Zidane headbutt. The image fails as fair use if it's simply being used to describe the headbutt or the 2006 World Cup Final. But it is fair use when it's being used to describe the internet meme derived from the headbutt footage. As far as I can tell, the image is simply being used to illustrate the event or the submarine, not to provide any discussion or commentary about the picture itself.Mosmof (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, a fair use rationale has been provided, and that does conform with policy. Justintalk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've restored the image to two of the articles for which I find it particularly aprapos. I find that making the editorial decision to remove it while the IfD is going on is a poor choice. If the decision is to delete, then it would be quite a simple procedure to remove it. S.D.Jameson 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd support that action, I thought it was inappropriate to remove it as well but did not wish to edit war over it. I did find the presumption of the part of the editor that this image "will be deleted" to be somewhat presumptuous. Justintalk 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Support it as well. I would like to express my concern about the way this has been handled by Future Perfect, as aside Justin's comment (which I agree with), I think that edit warring to remove an image from an article so that it can be speedy deleted as orphaned is abuse of process. And I note that it was Justin that refused to continue the edit war, not Future Perfect. Pfainuktalk 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the books I've seen regarding the Falklands War has the Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg as an illustration. I'm very interested in all those "different images (same scene but different photograph)". Or are they just pictures of some black metal thingies in the water. The very idea of going to take free photos of well-preserved museum ships as substitutes for the existing image is an insult to people's intelligence. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question: if this has been published in several books, can you check what copyright owner they credit it to? Or can somebody contact the website owner who we are currently crediting it to? Because that would make it rather unlikely it's ultimately his. And we need to be certain about copyright, otherwise that would be in itself a mandatory reason to speedy-delete. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment, the origin of that photo is easily found. The information to provide a fair use rationale is readily to hand. Regards, Justintalk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've borrowed the books from the library so I don't have them any longer. But I got "Falklands 25 - Official Commemorative Publication" ISBN 1-905435-44-4 with the exact same image of HMS Conqueror as Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. The picture copyright owner is Imperial War Museum.--Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not sure it does meet the requirements under non-free usage. This is not a picture of the sub *sinking* the war ship -- that would be iconic. It is not a shot of major damage which was overcome to still limp back into port. It is not the largest (or other *physical* manifestation) ship that needs to be illistrated to be fully understood. I can be told it is a sub that did great things; I don't need to see it to understand. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally comment on someone's rationale but are you serious? How do you expect a picture of a nuclear submarine submerged in the South Atlantic to be taken? Usually the only thing to mark a sinking by a submarine is its return to harbour, its a well known tradition in many navies to fly some sort of symbol (in the Royal Navy a Jolly Roger, in the US Navy a broom) to signify its successes. That is exactly what is shown here and the image makes that understanding so much clearer. Justintalk 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact I said the picture of the sinking would be iconic is exactly the point you made -- to get *that* picture would make the photograph itself a topic of discussion not just what was being captured in the photo.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fut.Perf doesn't understand the significance of the "Jolly Roger". In British history, flying the Jolly Roger signifies a submarine kill. No submarine, anywhere in the world, has made a kill since World War 2, which is significant due to submarines playing such a large part in modern warfare. Also, more significantly the flying of the Jolly Roger spawned the Argentine insult of calling the British "pirates", this term has fallen into common usage, even in the media! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the historical significance of the Jolly Roger perfectly well. But the image doesn't tell me what the Jolly Roger does, it doesn't help me to understand what the Jolly Roger is, in fact, it doesn't even show me the Jolly Roger at all (it's like, three pixels). I know that the Jolly Roger is there only because the text tells me. I know all these things about the meaning of the Jolly Roger only because the text tells me. Again: just because the story is important doesn't mean an image related to the story is important for understanding it. People are still failing to understand the logical distinction between an image and the thing it shows. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your logic is flawed, have u never heard the term "a picture paints a thousand words"? Of course you have to be told what's in the picture, by your logic, without a description, iconic photos like this one, could merely be construed as some Asian kids running/hopping/skipping on a road with a fire/tornado/plain old big ball of smoke in the background, and therefore should be deleted. In fact as this isn't on a article about "Children suffering napalm burns from American forces during the Vietnam War" perhaps u should try n delete it lol? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that other, truly iconic, photograph. The big difference is that one actually is the subject of encyclopedic discussion in the articles it is used in – much unlike this here. And the submarine image just doesn't "speak a thousand words". What words would those be? Name a few. Just a few. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, "a picture paints a thousand words" means that every photo has a story behind it, obviously this one does. And the Phuc photo isn't on an article specifically about kids being burned, it's on Kim Phuc's biography, the same reason reason why Conqueror's most famous photo should be on it's article. You're contradicting yourself now Ryan4314 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Phuc photo is on Phuc's biography because it was the photo that made her notable, and it is the story of the photo itself that is being told. None of the submarine articles discusses the story of the photo itself; the photo is entirely non-notable. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is of part of the events that Conks famous! Mate, seems ur clutching at straws here, u keep changing ur argument and I'm sorry to say I think ur too proud to admit when ur wrong. You're turning this into some personal little "battle" or something, hence your "You wont't get away that easily". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have to go AFK now, don't take my leaving as a sign of lack of interest, just have to go ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we don't go by the "picture paints a thousand words" rule of thumb. Non-free media has to support the text in some specific way, not just some vague way. The way this is supposed to work is that the reader reads the article, forms a mental picture, and then after viewing the media, says, "Oh, I totally get it now!" So you can't just use the non-free photo without actually having text that makes the photo required. That's why this fails NFCC 8. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that you seem to be missing is that the image was used in context with supporting text, until it was removed from several articles, declared to be orphaned and then nominated for a speedy deletion. That of itself was an abuse of process. There is a fair use rationale for this image and there is no equivalent none-free image. Not only does it satisfy NFCC#8 but it could be the poster child for that policy. Justintalk 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in the context of the Falklands War this image is essential. Do you want to know something else, I've never seen this image V–J day in Times Square and as I'm not American that is probably unsurprising. And I've never heard of the Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. thing either. Neither mean anything to me, absolutely nothing and I doubt that either mean much to many Brits. You might like to consider iconic images in one English language culture are not necessarily iconic in other English language cultures but that clearly doesn't diminish their value to a global endeavour like Wikipedia. Sorry but I think your argument is somewhat US-centric. Justintalk 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point isn't to compare the length and the girth of our iconic images (though mine *is* bigger), but to point out that the purpose of "iconic" or "historic" images on Wikipedia. Those images are significant enough that the images essentially demand articles on themselves. And clearly, it would be impossible to have an article about Iwo Jima without actually showing the photograph, because the photograph was front and center of the story. A more Anglo-friendly example would be Hand of God goal, where the photograph was a major part of the controversy, and it would be impossible to understand the subject without seeing the photograph. However, it would be inappropriate to use the Iwo Jima photograph in an article about flagpoles, or to use the Hand of God article to illustrate Diego Maradona or Peter Shilton or the 1986 World Cup. But that's essentially what you're arguing for with the HMS Conqueror pic. Mosmof (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; I picked out those because I know them; but all of those photos are notable because secondary sources say so and we have that information in the article. For a UK photo that fits the bill, Profumo Affair has one, although I'd still prefer if that article talked about the photo more than it does. My point is that in each of these cases, the photo itself is the story or at least part of it, whereas in this case the photo merely depicts the events being told. Also, when I say that photo is essential to the article, I mean that those articles simply cannot be understood well without the usage of the photos. howcheng {chat} 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making points that only strengthen my argument, it is impossible to have an article about the Falklands War that doesn't include certain iconic images (this being one of them). If you think size is somehow important, obviously yours in "bigger", but "bigger" alone doesn't mean better. And you're probably actually right, that photo is iconic enough to justify an article in its own right. I'd just never though of creating one before. Similarly the article cannot be anywhere near as well understood without the use of that photo. Justintalk 08:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the "bigger" thing was a dick joke. I use them to add levity, but I understand non sequiturs and goofiness don't always translate well. Forget I ever mentioned the size of my enormous iconic photographs that ladies can't get enough of. Second, the point isn't whether the image is iconic or not. For the purposes of Wikipedia, not only does the image have to be considered iconic, but how and why that image is iconic needs to be discussed. The way this image is/was used in various articles, there was absolutely no discussion of the photograph itself, just what's illustrated in the photographs. It's a huge distinction that all the "keep" !votes are missing. If it's iconic, you should cite a siyrce discussing the impact/notoriety/notability of the photograph (again, the photograph itself, not the event captured in the photograph). Mosmof (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the bit that does not compute, the reasons for the image being iconic ARE being discussed. The people voting delete are applying a hair splittingly narrow interpretation of the policy; and I fundamentally disagree that somehow everyone else can't understand policy which is the implication i keep hearing. In point of fact, I've it in mind to create an article with several iconic images from the Falklands War, assuming I'm allowed to have the chance. 23:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No no no, I mean discuss within the article. The very purpose of fair use is to allow for unauthorized use of intellectual work in discussing the intellectual work itself, so an art critic can show a relevant painting to make his point, or a literary professor can cite relevant sections for commentary. There's no attempt to do that in any of the articles where the image is used - all the uses are simply decorative. What you characterize as "hair splittingly narrow interpretation" is the very definition of fair use. Mosmof (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content....Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. Iconic image check, historically important check, subject of commentary check. Compliance with NFCC check. Which bit did I miss? On the other hand, you appear to be limiting the interpretation to Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. Justintalk 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The operative phrase is "As subjects of commentary.". What I've been trying to explain is that I don't see the commentary that the image is a subject of. Mosmof (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the bit that does compute, the image is there as a subject of commentary. Justintalk 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Let's go through each use, one by one:
HMS Conqueror (S48) - used as infobox image, not as subject of commentary. No commentary or caption. The point of an infobox image is to show what the subject looks like. Since one could enter the dockyard with permission and create a free alternative, it fails NFCC#1 as it is used.
Actually to be pedantic you can't normally enter the dockyard and take a photo. The photo was taken on a navy day, knowing the area I was surprised permission was given as its quite a sensitive area and normally official photos only are released. But you miss the point that the image of HMS Conqueror as the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship generates its iconic status. If you're suggesting the article needs improving to justify the fair use rationale thats one thing but please give people a chance to do just that. Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Churchill class submarine - same as HMS Conqueror (S48), used in infobox, not as subject of commentary. Again, if a submarine in the class is preserved and available for public viewing, even if by permission, then fails NFCC#1.
Actually I'd agree with you here, it fails the fair use rationale. Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British naval forces in the Falklands War - caption describing the event, no commentary on the image. Doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to illustrate what the text already describes. More decorative than informative.
Well actually I'd disagree here because it is an iconic image to illustrate the Royal Navy contribution to the Falklands War. The caption provides a commentary that justifies its use. Its not decorative, its informative. Again if you feel that the article needs to be improved then thats different. Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Navy Submarine Service - assuming it's impossible to get a free image of a Royal Navy sub displaying the Jolly Roger, this image is not particularly encyclopedic since the Jolly Roger is indiscernible in the image. Again, no discussion on the image itself. If the point is to illustrate a sub flying the Jolly Roger, then the penultimate image here does a far better job.
Except that the events of the Falklands War are wholly unique. Possibly needs improving but lets give people a chance to do just that eh. I mean am I missing something, there is a very real rationale for using this iconic image, if you're saying the articles where it is justied are not doing enough as currently written (and I don't agree for all, just 2 of them), then lets give editors a chance to improve them. Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So as I said, I don't see the image "as subject of commentary" anywhere. And the Kennedy's tomb example doesn't work - for one thing, US Federal Government images are in public domain, so the issue wouldn't come up, and second, if the body of Kennedy was preserved reasonably well in mummified form, even with his internal organs removed, and displayed in an open casket in a location that allows reasonable public access, then hell yeah, a photograph of such would serve as a perfectly good alternative to a non-free copyrighted image of him from the 60s. Likewise, the submarine is preserved and available for public viewing. Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is such a ridiculous argument I don't feel the need to respond. And no the submarine is not preserved and is not available for public viewing. Its stored in a facility awaiting disposal of its reactor compartment, its been stripped out of all non-nuclear components. Its actually a classified area where you'd normally need a security clearance to approach. As I said earlier, I'm astonished that someone got permission to take a picture. But tell me if you have the experience and expertise to actually help editors improve the articles to help them provide a better fair use rationale, then why don't you do that, instead of using it to argue for its deletion. Which action is going to improve the encylopedia? Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above discussion. Apcbg (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usage in the vessel article is fair given the circumstances of the image, and similarly it appears to be fair to use it in Op Corporate related context. I also think the previous, larger, version is more useful as the Jolly Roger is fairly clear in the way it's not clear in the current version. The alternative proposed isn't of Conq anyway, it's the hull that used to be commissioned as Conq, a subtle distinction but significant one. ALR (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Without prior knowledge or supporting text, the image tells the reader nothing. The submarine is notable. The sinking is notable. The image, independent of the subject, is neither notable nor informative, and thus fails NFCC. Mosmof (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentAre you aware that the image had supporting text in the articles it was used in? Used in context the image tells the reader a lot. Justintalk 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response' I think you missed my point, that because it doesn't really tell us anything without accompanying text, its purpose can most likely be replaced by prose alone. Mosmof (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) edited to add: I'm looking at the context of the usage in each of the articles above, Royal Navy Submarine Service, Churchill class submarine, British naval forces in the Falklands War, HMS Conqueror (S48), I see nothing to suggest the image meets WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. The supporting text merely provides caption, and except for the use in HMS Conqueror (S48), the image is used to decorate, not to inform. Mosmof (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the reply and in response I don't think I missed your point but I do appreciate you taking the time to look further into it. I just happen to disagree with you, prose without the accompanying image is not that helpful to the reader. The image makes the difference, hence I don't believe it is there simply to decorate. Were it used frivoulously as decoration, I would not be so passionate about retaining it. But however I do respect you have a different opinion and appreciate that you at least took the trouble to investigate how the image was used. Regards, Justintalk 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly does NOT fail #8. Any image apart from the image and event it depicts is meaningless. This is pointless semantical hair-splitting by those who wish to interpret NFCC in the strictest way possible. S.D.Jameson 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep Clearly notable historic image. As a side note, nuke subs can stay underwater for extended periods of time. It is likely this was the first time she surfaced after the kill...making the event even more notable. — BQZip01 —talk 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hair-splitting, semantically gymnastic attempt to separate the photograph from the event. Just because we disagree with you, FP, doesn't mean we are wrong. S.D.Jameson 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just means you are unwilling to take the rules seriously. Show me the part of the rules where it says you can use any image to illustrate an event just because the event is notable. It's just not there. NFCC says something entirely different. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone interprets NFCC policy differently than you does not mean they have a "reading problem." Please refrain from making any further personal insinuations about me. This is a discussion, FP. You don't get to insult people just because they disagree with you. S.D.Jameson 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, will you show me the place where the rules say you can use any image to illustrate an event just because the event is notable? Pretty please? Fut.Perf.☼ 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Wikipedia does not have rules, it has policies and guidelines and one of its policies is that policy/guidelines should most definitely not be interpreted as rules. It also encourages editors that they do not narrowly interpret policies and guidelines, treat individual cases on merit and achieve agreement through consensus. Some people seem to have forgotten that. Justintalk 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most other things on Wikipedia, NFCC actually is a "rule", defining minimal standards that may not be broken under any condition, and it must be interpreted narrowly. Foundation policy is not subject the flexibility you describe. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even with a very narrow interpretation of NFCC, this image conforms to that policy and more than adequately meets the minimal standards to justify its use. You're seeking to apply an overly zealous interpretation of that standard. Justintalk 10:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, use of this image in the vessel's article in entirely justified given the context. Incidentally, shouldn't it be tagged Crown Copyright? Leithp 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pity I can't declare keep because of FP's browbeating, but because of Non-free image reason number 8. While I do agree that the image could be discussed more in text of the conqueror article, I think the quote about the event, the discussion of the flag waving all contribute. Now, if the prose has to be made to look foolish by having 'As we can see in the picture in the infobox' put infront of it, so be it. Narson (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that such an addition (which would be foolish indeed) would change anything just goes to show you haven't even begun to understand the issue. Plus, of course, a phrase like as we can see... would simply be untrue. Because, as you can easily see in the picture, you can in fact see nothing. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can help by spelling out what your current objection is, as you have changed it a few times that I can see. If you could see your way to coming off your high horse, that would be appreciated too. Narson (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My objection has remained the same since the beginning, and no attempt has yet been made to even address it. It is still this: "it makes no actual contribution, as an image, to understanding what it claims to represent. [...] Anything this image is claimed to stand for has to be first explained to the reader through text before he can even begin to appreciate what it's about; once that is done, the text has rendered the image superfluous." The only way to counter this is for somebody to explicitly name a concrete piece of visual information that is physically present in the photograph and couldn't be covered by text; plus, sourced discussion in the article of the image as an image (not the scene it shows, but as a creative work of its photographer). Fut.Perf.☼ 10:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This objection is illogical, all pictures, iconic or not, require a description for those who have never seen them. The Kim Phuc and Iwo Jima are not self explanatory. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was looking at the wrong critera. So criteria 1 on the content list? To me, at least, the idea of a submarine flying a flag is strange (I was barely aware the things had masts) so it was certainly informative and conveyed the subject, at least to me. Could it be done with text? Not equally well (Again, my opinion). Do we have any free unobstructed pictures of Conqueror available, though? Narson (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceability always hinges on what piece of information you wish to convey. If you wish to convey the information about how submarine fly flags, that could be done in any number of different ways, but would probably not be germane to any of these articles. If you wish to show what the Jolly Roger looked like, the image doesn't do that anyway, but you could go and take a photo of the flag, which hangs in a museum. If you wish to inform the reader about the physical shape and appearance of the submarine, that could also be done in any number of ways: a drawing, a model, a photograph of an identical ship. But what most people here claim they want to be doing is to impart something about the historical significance of that particular action. And here I'm just lost, because the historical significance of that action is an abstract thing that simply cannot be illustrated. Nothing in the appearance of the submarine in that photo is in any way informative about it. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they feel it can be illustrated by a photo? Personally, it has a 'je ne sais pas'. I can understand an argument that it can be used in the other articles because it encapsulates the mood and the event. Concentrating on its use in the Conqueror article though, I think it sums up the Conqueror's fame/notability in a way text could not adaquatly do, to me. Unfortunatly the whole thing is rather subjective. You think one thing, others think something else. The NFCC are very subjective, hence why this is here. Perhaps responding to every comment is unnecessary and we should simply trust the closing admin to use his judgement? Narson (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "je ne sais pas" means just that: you don't know. How can it possibly "encapsulate the mood and the event", since it looks precisely like any other submarine coming back to port from any other mission? That "je ne sais pas" is purely in the eye of the beholder: you feel it encapsulates the mood because you already know the context. It merely reminds you of it, and that makes it feel "important". But it does so only because you know in advance, it cannot teach you anything over and above what you already know; hence its contribution to understanding is zero. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why this photo can't be used under a fair use claim. It is an irreplacable photo of a very historically significant event (the only nuclear submarine to sink a ship returning to port flying the traditional jolly rodger flag which marks a sucessful cruise) and is clearly not of publishable quality. The photo is iconic as it appears in most histories of the war, providing further weight for a fair use claim. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image is rationaled to "identify and illustrate [the] HMS Conqueror", a task performed by other libre imagery available, quickly failing WP:NFCC#1. If the article has reliably sourced prose discussing the photograph and its importance/significance, then (a) it may meet the muster of #1 and #8, and (b) such needs to be specified in the IDP rationale. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Future Perfect is correct, if there is a well preserved ship identical to this one that is freely and easily accessible by the public, this image can be replaced with a free alternative since there is nothing within the context of this picture that is otherwise remarkable. The size reduction in the image makes it impossible to identify what flag its flying and otherwise it's a standard image of a submarine pulling into port, which is not something we need a fair use image to illustrate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no offense by this, but this kind of recommendation has simply done me in. Comparing the Conqueror pulling into port, while flying the Jolly Roger after the sinking, to "a standard image of a submarine pulling into port", is just so historically obtuse, that I must simply retire from this discussion at this point. I have no answer for people who willingly believe such things. S.D.Jameson 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you ought to learn to separate the distinction between this image and that event. Nobody here is making any conclusions about the significance of what happened that day, only on the use of this image in this encyclopedia. This is a discussion on policy and not on historical context. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this says that the Conquerer is still afloat at Devonport Dockyards and this picture suggests that ship is easily accessible by the public. So absent any comparable hulls on public display, we know that the ship itself can be freely photographed because we already have a free picture. This picture is too small to be of any real encyclopedic use (even with an article on the picture itself), so it doesn't make any sense to preserve a fair use image when we already have a free use image of the article's subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, thats an image of the decommissioned hulk of what used to be HMS Conqueror, as one poster already pointed out its akin to illustrating an article on JFK with an image of his tombstone. There is a good reason for using this image and the argument that you can separate the historical event from an iconic image is utterly specious. Without historical context, the Iwo Jima image is just a bunch of blokes putting up a flag. And for information you can't freely photograph the hulks in the naval dockyard, you need access to the dockyard, for which there is no public access. As to the argument you could use any image of a sub, I'm sorry but that is a complete and utter nonsensical argument, are you seriously suggesting you could just shove in any old image and that will do? That makes a nonsense of wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and I'm astonished that two editors have now made the same suggestion. Justintalk 23:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argument I must admit I do find odd. I mean, we wouldn't put a picture of Baroness Amos for Margeret Thatcher, because they are both old white ladies in the lords. Mind you, the idea that the image could be recreated is also somewhat amusing. Anyone volunteering to break into the dockyards, fuel a nuclear sub, hoist a jolly roger, sail out to sea and then sail back in so I can take a picture? I'll give you 5 bucks if you don't get shot by the Royal Marines. Narson (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"if there is" ... if "well preserved" ... if "identical to this one" ... if "easily accessible by the public" ... Too many "ifs" I reckon. Until and indeed unless such a picture were produced here, it's too hypothetical to be used as an argument for deletion. Apcbg (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not too many ifs at all. As you can see at Image:Warspiteconquerorvaliant.jpg, this very ship is preserved in a dockyard that grants access to photographers who request it. Since it's quite obviously possible to create a free alternative, the NFCC#1 is pretty much shot, at least the way this image is used now. Mosmof (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's just your say-so that this and that could be done and some picture allegedly could be taken -- but there is no such picture, is there? Sorry, no alternative picture -- no valid deletion request. Apcbg (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the above reasoning is the *very* reason non-free usage is more limited then just fair use. The reasoning goes, as long as there is a good image, abet non-free, there is little if any motivation to get a replacement that is free. Hense, as a motivating factor, non-free images are not used when it is reasonable to get a free one.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats actually correct but misses the point. There isn't the slightest remote possibility of getting a free one in this case. The suggestion that its reasonable to get a free one is also incorrect. This isn't in a museum its a nuclear vessel awaiting disposal. How that other photo was taken I can't imagine but as noted elsewhere photography is actually forbidden in the naval base where it is stored. One of the conditions of tours of the naval base is a strict no cameras rule. Justintalk 13:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it must be my ignorance; I did not realize fair use was not non-free usage :-) Apcbg (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much an issue of nobody being prepared to make the effort, it's that it is now no longer possible to get a photograph of HMS Conqueror. She's been decommissioned for 18 years. the hulk exists, but that would not be representative.
The boat (not sub) currently in the dockyard is the decommissioned hulk, which used to be Conqs. It is not preserved, the hulk is kept there until such time as the kettle can be disposed of.ALR (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw your attention to term number three of Royal Navy tours of Her Majesty's Naval Base Devonport: 3. No cameras/camera phones will be permitted inside the Naval Base.
Just to make the point. Are you seriously suggesting the image of rusting hulks with major components removed is in any way a suitable replacement for the submarine in the context of an iconic image?Rusting hulks, Iconic image of HMS Conqueror. As I have already commented I'm highly surprised permission was granted, and as the above commentator points out it appears to directly contradict terms of use. Justintalk 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Plymouth Navy Days, photography seems to be generally possible, there's lots of images from such occasions on the net. How often are those held? Fut.Perf.☼ 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See [15], photography is actually forbidden. Justintalk 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have a free image taken in that dockyard, so our gyrations here about whether or not it can be done are moot. The argument about the physical structure being only the hulk of Conqueror, or that a sister ship wouldn't do justice to Conqueror, are both equally irrelevant since we're only looking for a general illustration of this ship and we don't really need a picture of this event. A rough idea of the ship's dimensions and appearance can be taken from either, and the picture of this event, on its face, does a remarkably poor job of showing what this submarine looked like because of the size limitations for fair use images. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we have a free image that is not germane to the article under discussion British naval forces in the Falklands War and one of the most important naval engagements of the war. Justintalk 09:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For information, it is my intention to create an article about this photograph. It is an iconic image of the Falklands War and as such it would justify an article in its own right. Justintalk 19:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that, but you're welcome to try. Let's see if the information out there warrants it. — BQZip01 —talk 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been several comments that the image could simply be replaced with a picture of one of her sister ships. Given that an article about this specific ship or are being used to illustrate the actions of this ship, I couldn't disagree more. It's like saying this illustrates an AC-130. They are both in the same family, but aren't the same plane (in fact, EXTREMELY different with everything except the external airframe and the engines). Doing so in an encyclopedia would be misleading and inaccurate. If we are talking about use with respect to the class of submarine, I concur that this picture is indeed fluff. In short, it has its place within Wikipedia, but not to be used gratuitously. — BQZip01 —talk 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the version before it was re-sized and cropped, the jolly roger was far more visable when looking at the photo itself, I'm thinking his doesn't matter (as it won't be full size on the article), but can someone just confirm that for me? Edited to add: Also there seems to be an 'all or nothing' view being taken, that the rationale for all articles must be valid. Personally I think it has a definate fair use for HMS Conqueror and I believe it has one for an article about the Falklands, I think the Churchill class and RSS are a bit iffy. Narson (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that we're not getting anywhere with the all-or-nothing approach to keeping or deleting, and it might help to look at it case by case:
British naval forces in the Falklands War: Because this is essentially a list article and there is no discussion of ships or images, all non-free images, including the Conqueror, should be removed, as they are used merely for illustration and identification, not discussion. My recommendation: remove this and all other non-free images.
Royal Navy Submarine Service: I understand the reasoning here, but the Jolly Roger is too small to be visible to the naked eye. My recommendation: replace with more descriptive image
Churchill class submarine: I guess it depends on how restrictive the no-cameras policy at Devenport is, but it seems the photographer of Image:Warspiteconquerorvaliant.jpg took it with explicit permission from the dockyard, despite the restriction mentioned below by Narson. Has anyone tried to contact the Royal Navy or the dockyard about acquiring permission, or contacted the user who uploaded the image (edited to add: I notice that User:Justin A Kuntz has left a message on User talk:Steel city ady, so we might yet figure out how possible it is to get free images from the dockyard)? I mention this since this this picture from the Royal Navy site does a far better job of illustrating this submarine class. My recommendation: try to replace with free image
HMS Conqueror (S48): I guess this is the most contetious of the four cases. While I appreciate users not wanting to use the image of the hull, as an outsider to the subject, I'm not sure how much more effective the Jolly Roger image is in showing what the ship looks like. It seems that a diagram of the sub would actually be more helpful than a photo. I really don't have a recommendation for this one, but as a pure visual aid, I'm not seeing how the dockyard photo is inferior to the Jolly Roger photo. Mosmof (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your # 4 is less than convincing I'm afraid; 95% of the article HMS Conqueror (S48) is not about how that submarine looks like (which according to you could be illustrated by the hulk picture) but about the submarine's participation in the Falklands War and the sinking of ARA Belgrano (which is well illustrated by the Jolly Roger picture and not at all by the hulk picture). Apcbg (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Conqueror article, you see that the Jolly Rogers pic isn't being used to discuss the points you mentioned, but in the infobox. Infobox images are used for illustration or identification, so if a free image doesn't do any worse a job of showing what the article subject looks like, then the free image should be used. For this use, Falklands participation and the Jolly Roger are irrelevant. They would be more relevant if the pic were being used in discussion of the Jolly Roger (though one can easily argue that prose does an adequate job of informing readers that it participated in Falklands and felw the Jolly Rogger after sinking Belgrano). --Mosmof (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning relates to the more suitable place of the picture -- I wouldn't object having it outside the infobox. Apcbg (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the reason we all keep talking on different wavelengths about this. We are operating with totally different concepts of what "illustrate" means. Some of us, me included, talk about "illustrate" in the sense of: impart concrete visual information. Others talk about "illustrate" in the sense of: symbolically conjure up a feeling of immediacy of participation. It's only in that second sense that the photograph "illustrates" the "participation in the war". It symbolically conjures it up in our minds, but it doesn't tell us anything concrete about it. I can totally understand why people think in these terms, it's only natural and human, I suppose - but it's not a good way of judging images when it comes to the task of cutting them back to a necessary minimum. Which happens to be our mission. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The story of participation of a warship in a war is not just the single moment of firing a torpedo or opening gunfire in anger (as a matter of fact such a participation may even include no such firing) but the entire mission starting with the preparation, sailing to the war zone, action there (patrolling, sea battle, whatever) and eventually the return to base. Therefore, the picture in question imparts something perfectly concrete about the submarine's participation in the war by showing an actual part of that participation. Apcbg (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't get any of that information from the image. All of that information is expressed through text. Absent any discussion of the image itself, the photograph is not at all informative, and to give it any significance not supported with cited text would amount to original research. For an example of how non-free historic images should be used, look at Image:Vj day kiss.jpg. It's not because of what it shows - it's not to show that people were kissing on the street on VJ Day, or to illustrate the mood of the celebration. It's there to show what it is, an image that became iconic and a topic of discussion. Mosmof (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon this is an encyclopaedia not comics. The picture is not here to replace the article by conveying the information given in the text, it's to illustrate. Isn't this same picture abundantly used in publications (books etc.) on the Falklands War? Isn't that use precisely for the purposes of illustration? Apcbg (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the use of Vj day kiss.jpg in VJ Day is anything remotely like a comic book. And "other publications" are irrelevant unless they're publishing under a GFDL license and claiming fair use for the images. Other publications aren't trying to create restriction-free content that can be adapted for any use, but unfortunately, you and I are. --Mosmof (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]he idea that the use of Vj day kiss.jpg in VJ Day is anything remotely like a comic book" is new to me; where did you get it? And please explain also how the fair use of non-free images could "create restriction-free content that can be adapted for any use"? Apcbg (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by your "I reckon this is an encyclopaedia not comics" comment, which I inferred to be a response to my explanation of how the VJ Day kiss photograph is a good example of fair use. And you seem to misunderstand my point. As a GFDL-licensed encyclopedia, Wikipedia technically can't use *any* copyrighted images, as they would present a restriction for users who adapt Wikipedia for derivative use. But in cases where copyrighted images is deemd absolutely positively necessary to communicate a certain piece of information, we can claim fair use and take copyrighted work. --Mosmof (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, what we are debating here is the fair use rationale for the non-free image of HMS Conqueror. Apcbg (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Me again I'm afrad. Would this do a better job of illustrating the Jolly Roger point? Though the closeness puts me off slightly. Narson (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on HMS Conqueror (S48). These rediculously narrow interpretations of fair use images that are passed off by image deletionists are just too much. In many cases, I don't think a rational editor on an outside publication would think twice about fair use. Yes, there are some basic standards for fair use, but we don't need to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think editors need to break away from the myopic naval gazing, and look at the world around us. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to do, after all. If the level of commentary on the photo does not meet your high standards, then be WP:BOLD and fix it! Dhaluza (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked with publishers in real life and published things in various venues, and I can assure you of one thing: No, out there people would not invoke fair use for such a case. They would go and ask the Museum for permission, or they'd get their bottoms spanked. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(add) I think we've all learnt from the Essjay debacle not to bring our real life qualifications into wikipedia debates, we should prosper by the strength of our arguments, not what claims we make. Although on a side note, I should mention that I'm actually Jim Wales n I say it's fine to use this photo, so if everyone want to head of home n ignore this page that'll be dandy ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that they might do that first, and there is nothing stopping us from doing the same. But at the end of the day, I bet most editors would say the case for fair use of the historical image of the sub in conjunction with the article on the history of the sub would be well within the reasonable bounds of fair use. It's also within reasonable interpretation of our fair use policy. When it comes to images for notable subjects, especially historically significant ones, we should be working towards inclusion, not exclusion. Issues in the FUR can be corrected by editing--deletion is not the only option in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For info the IWM grants free permission to use images for non-commercial use. Justintalk 22:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which means this overabundance of caution (if that is all it is) is all just tilting at windmills. Its use on WP is fine, as that is non-commercial, but it still needs a FUR for possible commercial derivative uses. But those are really not our concern, as it is up to the commercial re-user to validate that the FUR applies to their specific use. It's not necessary for us to explore every possible blind alley to find a reason to run away.Dhaluza (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it doesn't. The "terms and conditions" state [16]: images "may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an educational organisation", and: "Commercial users identifying any photograph that they wish to reproduce on a commercial basis, regardless of copyright status, should always contact the Photograph Archive". What we are doing is neither "research" nor "internal circulation". And the condition that commercial publication is subject to permission does not allow the reverse argument that any non-commercial use is not. The case where a non-commercial publication wishes to use the image for mere illustration of a published article, like we here, is simply not covered in that page. Default is that it's not permitted. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the text you cite is not equivilant to non-commercial use on WP, so the assertion by Justin is incorrect, and my reply was based on this incorrect assumption. However, I disagree with your assertion that the "default" or first reaction should be to delete. As editors, we should strive to follow WP:SOFIXIT and correct any errors or lack of rigor in the FUR or usage. That is, the default should be to try to keep it, and only delete if we cannot. The case for fair-use of this historical image is strong. If the case has not been made properly in the FUR or in its use in the article, then that should be addressed by normal editing. Dhaluza (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt at consensus building on Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpgedit
I don't know how appropriate it is to create a sub-section or conduct a straw poll in these kinds of discussions, but we seem to be getting nowhere, as there appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP:NFCC and the fair use doctrine in general, and arguments are getting nowhere. So I want to list the uses one by one, and see where the editors who support or oppose keeping the image stand on each usage. I get the sense that the discussion isn't as contentious on the first three articles, and much of the controversy is in the Conqueror article. If that's the case, that's where we can focus future discussions. Mosmof (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is far afield of the process we've undertaken. It's not about each individual article, it's about the image itself. I concur with Ryan that this type of thing confuses rather than helps. Such discussions should happen at the article talkpage, not the IfD. S.D.Jameson 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A straw poll is singularly inappropriate in a deletion review, in fact in general straw polls aren't encouraged because they don't indicate consensus.
In addition, I am rather tired of the constant accusations by one side in this debate that the other is apparently too stupid to understand policy on this matter. The chief issue is whether the useage of this image would pass NFCC requirements, its a subjective judgement particularly on NFCC#8. Suggestions that its a clear cut violation are only advanced by those with strongly held opinions against fair use images. In fact, strong arguments have been advanced in favour of its retention but the debate has become highly polarised.
Today we had an excellent suggestion by User:Dhaluza and I quote "The case for fair-use of this historical image is strong. If the case has not been made properly in the FUR or in its use in the article, then that should be addressed by normal editing." A better way to gain consensus would be to work on the articles to fix any problems with the FUR.
Oh and sources have been provided for supporting the use of this image but I think they're on the Talk Page of the article before the deletion review was started.
Finally in closing, I'd suggest you rethink the formatting, the small text in the title, combined with the bold text, gives the impression of additional votes for removal. Justintalk 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that it helps to move towards consensus by stating that people who disagree with you don't understand the problem, but laving that to one side I don't think there is scope for consensus as such with a binary decision, when there doesn't ppear to be any convergence at all up to now. The image is either deleted, or it's not. There are clearly pretty strong feelings on both sides of this, and some specious reasoning.
Given the lack of convergence it's probably appropriate for someone uninvolved in the discussion thus far to make an assessment of the discussion and come to a conclusion about the weight of argument on either side. This has now gone on for the five days indicated on the cover page and I believe that the default would normally be not to delete, since the cover page indicates deletion where consensus to do so has been achieved; that is clearly not the case.
Remove - the use of this image here is decorative, as neither the submarine nor the photograph is discussed in any detail, and the article is essentially a list of ships that participated in the Falklands War. --Mosmof (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to replicate Conqueror's in service look, no way to put her to see again without getting shot at by Royal Marines. So for this article I think it is justified, though perhaps some information on its use should be included. I am sure there is to be a debate as to what degree it informs, but on everything else it passes muster. Narson (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need here here. This article is simply a list of ships employed by the British naval forces in Falklands, and a reader who wants information about a specific vessel can simply read the article. While the Conqueror pic might seem to fit in here, since the article is pretty well illustrated, all other images used here are free images, and decorative uses of free images are are perfectly acceptable. Mosmof (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because its use here is not decorative, it use is informative in regard to an engagement that had a major impact on the Falklands War. It was absolutely pivotal to subsequent events. Justintalk 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the engagement in Falkland is more adequately described through prose. The image itself serves no encyclopedic purpose for this article. Mosmof (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Narson's comments which reflect my own. Justintalk 11:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - the image does not illustrate the flying of the Jolly Roger on a submarine, and thus fails the "adequate quality" test of NFCC#1. --Mosmof (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this one I am torn. There is an image that better illustrates the Jolly Roger, but it is not 'iconic' so I'm sure it will come under flak for that. For some reason the existing one is always used. The usage here is iffy, I think we are best off finding annother way to show what is meant. Narson (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, a non-free image doesn't necessarily have to be iconic. The issue of whether the image was iconic or not was brought up because that was used as a justification for keeping the image. If the purpose of the image is to show an iconic image, then there has to be a discussion of how and why the image itself (and not what the image shows) is iconic (being iconic alone is not justification for fair use). But if it's meant to be simply informative (as the purpose appears to be here), then the image not need be considered "iconic" but it has to be more descriptive than this. A closer shot that was mentioned earlier should work here. Mosmof (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closer shot that Narson mentioned would be much better here and it would be informative. It would need work on the accompanying text to justify. Justintalk 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also torn on this one. I can see arguments both ways with my personal opinion coming down on keep. But it isn't a strongly held belief and I'd compromise on this one. Justintalk 11:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - HMS Courageous is preserved in a more complete form at Devonport, and whatever the official photography policy, free photographs have been created at the docks, so it does not appear to be impossible to create one in the future. Considering an adequate free alternative image of a ship in this class can be created, fails NFCC#1. --Mosmof (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ill suited for use here. Narson (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the justification for use in this article is there but its very weak. Justintalk 11:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - While the hull image that we already have may not be desirable for editors who want to keep the image here, it does no worse a job of showing what the submarine looks like, so it's definitely out as the infobox image. And while editors have claimed that the image is iconic, in the week of discussion we have had, not a single editor has cited a secondary source discussing the importance of the image nor explained how the image would be discussed. Both the sinking of an Argentine ship and the flying of the Jolly Roger are adequately described through prose, and the photograph does not add any more encyclopedic information. Fails NFCC#1, no indication that NFCC#8 can be met. --Mosmof (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A submarine is not just a certain amount of metal, it is also her crew, her particular missions, service (and in this particular case also war) history, her image (in the wider sense, not just "what the submarine looks like") part of which is the debated photograph indeed. This photograph shows the submarine in her mission of taking part in the Falklands conflict (namely, at a final stage of that participation, returning to base; a mission neither starts nor ends with torpedo firing) which mission accounts for most of the content of the illustrated article anyway. Apcbg (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are several reasons for its inclusion on this article, to show her wartime service and to show what she looked like while in service. The free image is a mostly obstructed view with the ship covered in scaffolding, so she does a poor job of showing what the sub looks like and does no job at all of showing what the sub did. Narson (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apcbg's argument that most of the article considers this notable event is compelling. Justintalk 11:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I wholeheartedly agree that a submarine is more than pieces of metal, her missions, service history, crew, etc., basically what the sub did, are information that can be adequately be communicated through text (hence, NFCC#1). Visually (where an image can't be replaced by text), it is essentially a collection of metal parts. That said, if the image is kept because it's determined that the hulk doesn't show what the sub looks like adequately, then I wouldn't object. --Mosmof (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the image has a place would you be prepared to change your recommendation above? Justintalk 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. The other article deals with British naval vessels in Falklands in general, while this article deals with a specific submarine. --Mosmof (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Momsof: Were an image "essentially a collection of metal parts" as you suggest then La Gioconda would have been a collection of paint; no copyright on scrap hence no case for deletion :-) Apcbg (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A painting is, as you correctly point out, merely collection of paint on canvas. But that collection of paint of canvas is a piece intellectual property, and its very appearance is a focus of discussion and commentary. Mosmof (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're allowed to take votes, I think a neutral admin is meant to come along, read all of the above and make a decision, if he can't he asks some other admins n they mull it over. Although I respectively ask could you please un-bold your "Removes", it make it look 3 new editors have come along n said "Remove". Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intent wasn't for it to be an actual vote or an attempt to reach a definitive decision on whether or not to keep the image. I just wanted to see where everyone stood on each use, because the circumstances do differ from article to article, and arguments were mixing into one another. Apologies for not making myself very clear. At least for me personally, processing information is easier in bullet point form. --Mosmof (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While straw polls are not great, it does a good job of allowing seperated discussion so its use in individual articles can be discussed. However it should be noted that if its use in a single article is justified, then obviously the image should not be deleted. I can understand that some believe fervently that the use does not meet Fair Use, but I think both sides have to accept that the criteria ar subjective, each man will look upon them with his own eye. Narson (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only other comment is that for future reference you might find it easier to start to build consensus if you don't state your POV in the opening gambit. It certainly doesn't help to state the other side is wrong. Justintalk 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I agree with others here in that I don't think the straw poll helps here (particularly one in which the author appears to place his POV as central to the poll).
I agree with others that it does meet the criteria at least at HMS Conqueror (S48): it is the only unobstructed image of the ship available (and the only one likely to be available to those who don't want to be shot), and a clear image of the ship that is the subject of the article - particularly an image of her in commission - does add significant understanding to the article. As there is at least one article in which it meets the criteria, the image should be kept. More detailed discussion can take place on the image talk page or the article talk pages.
If the rationale isn't the best written in the world, WP:SOFIXIT. Pfainuktalk 12:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; it seems to me that the same arguments are being repeated, only now in the format of a bulleted poll. If we already provided input above this section break, are we supposed to elabourate further on those points below the section break? — pd_THOR|=/\= | 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be closed. There is nothing further to be accomplished by this repetition of old arguments, and there's clearly no consensus to delete the image, and no chance that such consensus will develop with an extension of the time allotted for IfDs. There have been strong, policy-based arguments made from each side, so interpretation of the NFCC policy in this case is, at best, murky. Therefore, I propose that this IfD be closed as no consensus to delete. S.D.D.J.Jameson 16:43, 19 August 2008 (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.
Contains copyrighted logo. I suspect the uploader took a photo of a board/banner or something, but that does not mean that they have the right to release it into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The logo is an issue, and based on the users usage after upload, it states it is a copy of the "1976 Pocket Schedule" on the 1976 Milwaukee Brewers season.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use of this copyrighted image. — BQZip01 —talk 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The size, silly shape, lack of meta-data and lack of explicit sourcing is leading me to believe this has been taken from elsewhere on the 'net. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the fact the text of the article it is located on is a copyright violation of [17]. They do not have pictures with the page but I would figure that the images have come from some internal company site -- they almost look like employee id card head shots. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no identifying information, this image lacks a use on Wikipedia. Agree it is likely a copyvio too. — BQZip01 —talk 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Book cover, but this book is not discussed in the article, nor does the addition of the cover increase reader understanding in any way. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image is also intended for use in another page that is currently under development in userspace, which discusses this campaign extensively; as the image is fair use, it cannot be placed into the article until the move to mainspace. Risker (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is vitally important to a page I am writing in user space. Giano (talk)#
In that case, download the image to your machine and re-upload it when the article is ready to be moved to article space. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough basis for a fair use rationale, though I'd suggest this is reviewed if an article is not forthcoming. Justintalk 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While its use could be justified in the Exploding Houses article, it is not needed in the main Mentmore article and could be saved locally, as the userspace draft has been a draft now for over a month. MBisanztalk 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually MBisanz, the Exploding houses page has been under construction for about a year. large pages full of referenced facts are not just mass produced in five minutes. Giano (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, yes, I didn't notice the deleted edits, so it has been a very long time that article has been in draft form, while the non-free image sits around, being poorly used and otherwise in violation of NFCC. MBisanztalk 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no need for hastiness it clearly will be in mainspace soon with proper rationale. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; already used in mainspace, and rationalised as such. —Giggy 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that it's clear that Giano plans to use it in a completely acceptable way, only process wonkery would demand it be deleted then re-uploaded when he puts his new article into the mainspace. S.D.Jameson 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but the article needs to be moved to mainspace (no reason you can't work on it there). Other uses that do not meet NFCC should be removed. — BQZip01 —talk 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
despite the very best edits of 2 editors, hell bent on causing trouble - who really should be blocked, the page will stay in my user space until I am happy with it, and it is finished. When it is completed (in my time and to my satisfaction) and all the references checked etc. In the meantime, the recent edits and movements to the page prove that it really is better at the moment where it is. Thank you for your interest. Your comments have been noted. Giano (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a sufficient use now... C'mon people... leave it be and move on. Giano, if it gets deleted for some deranged reason, just use a placeholder image (I suggest the No Bull one you had on your userpage for a while??? that one seems apropos for some reason!) and when you are ready to go live (take your time... as long as you are willing to risk someone else doing this article meanwhile, keep it in userspace as long as you want, listen not to BQZip01...), any admin wil be happy to undelete this one for the article... ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be no harm to retaining this image for now, although it could easily be inserted commented out on the userspace version and then restored from deletion at some later date if its deleted (as I see Lar notes right above!). Avruch T 21:47, 15 August 2008 (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 debate was: speedy deleted by J.delanoy as G3: Pure vandalism.
OR, UE, possible CV - Non-notable parody, and contains link to uploader's own site. Claims to be derivative work of copyright free images, but source information is not made specific. Mosmof (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (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.
Orphaned image, not in use, doubt it'll ever be GoLeafsGo 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps it might someday, but given that it isn't right now, it should be deleted accordingly. — BQZip01 —talk 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
speedily deleted per author's request, replaced with Commons image nneonneotalk 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obsoleted fair use image (Wikimedia Commons has a similar image in higher resolution) nneonneotalk 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need to keep this image, as we have a free alternative to it. --Carioca (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I interpret that as an author's request for deletion, so it can be submitted for speedy deletion? nneonneotalk 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a safe call. Speedy delete is entirely appropriate here. S.D.Jameson 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as author request (CSD G7). nneonneotalk 01:19, 13 August 2008 (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.
This is a non-free image of an existing building whose exterior is still in the same condition as in this image. A free image of the building exists at Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg. While it may be on private property, in theory the image could be replaced by a free image from someone requesting permission to visit the site or from someone who already owns a similar free image. While it may be nice to have a view of this side of the building, the existence of a free image of the building overrides the need for an aesthetically perfect non-free image. Therefore, this images violates NFCC criteria #1. MBisanztalk 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is now heavily guarded, replacement images are not possible without breaking the British laws of trespass, and risking personal safety. The replacement image Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg shows minor facades, it is not even the secondary garden facade. The image nominated for deletion is the principal facade. The house now has planning permission for major structural alterations which will shortly be executed. It is vital this image is retained. Giano (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suggesting Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg, a photo of the back corner, is in any way a replacement of Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg, the main entrance and full view of the building, is kind of like saying a photo of the service entrance of a skyscraper will suffice as a representation of the building as a whole. Except, of course, that this building as it exists in this photograph, is no longer accessible and will not be in existence in this current state for much longer. Risker (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also this imagecould be a free replacement if the author lowered the license setting. That images existence also means it is not impossible to get an image of this building. MBisanztalk 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that is the garden facade the entrance facade clearly illustrates the Victorian peculiarity of burying wings in the ground and disguising wings. Secondly, that facade is not about to be altered, while the facade you are so desperate to delete is about to be altered. Giano (talk)
I'm not convinced as to this image's uniqueness or this viewing critical nature to understanding the subject of the article and believe our mission of delivering free, reusable content should supersede a minor aesthetic issue when acceptable replacements are available. I had this exact same issue last week with an article I was writing, and accepted the lower quality free view as the better alternative. MBisanztalk 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "peculiarity" that you speak of is best discussed at Victorian architecture (or whatever the exact style is), where it can be accompanied by an appropriate free photograph. Besides, the burying of wings in the ground isn't even discussed in this article in the first place. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NFCC #1 violation. The building architecture is pretty much the same all around the building, so seeing the rear doesn't impart any more information than seeing the front does. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What absolute rubbish! Not worthy of further comment. Giano (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Utterly irreplaceable, and I fully agree with both Giano and Risker's rationale. S.D.Jameson 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Risker; the notion that it is replaceable in such a way is nonsense. —Giggy 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entire discussion here seems to revolve around whether the image is replaceable. Given that the facade is about to be changed, the historical context of the picture, and lack of access, it seems that this image should be kept. I also concur that an up close image of a small portion of the structure does not convey the same information as a wide-angle shot. — BQZip01 —talk 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I understand the historical value of the image, but I have the problem with the following. According to the text of the image description page, the image is "a faithful digitalization of Mentmore Towers." Ok, so where was this digitalization based from? Plus, where is the source for this image at all. Without this information, we have no choice but to delete the image. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that one I can tell you because I have seen it before. All the photos of Mentmore Towers uploaded by User:B Milnes were part of a promotional brochure produced in the early 1980s by The World Government of the Age of Enlightenment, (a branch of Transcendental Meditation) the former owners of Mentmore Towers, who occupied the near empty house and gave flying lessons there (not London to New York, but straight up and down while sitting on a magic carpet or whatever). Realising this had limited success as a business venture, they then branched into the rather more lucrative world of film. Their brochure was sent out to many film companies in the hope of leasing the house as a film set. I forget what the exact name of the company they founded , to do this, was called, but whatever it was I do know it's no longer in existance and the brochure no longer produced. That dreadful style of artificial blue sky ect was typical of their own photography. If any copies of the brochure remain, they will be truly at the back of a filing cabinet by now. The property is now completely guarded and impossible to see, apart from a distant view through trees from a long distance away. so while that shot is pretty grim, it likely to be the best we will get. The new owner allows no access at all, for a very understandable reason, which I am not going to broadcast all over the internet. (Email me if you want to know). Here is the best free image of that angle, I could find too upload Image:Mentmore.gif Judge for yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the place is guarded and stuff, but what I am getting at is if we don't ID the source of the photograph and put it back in the image description page, the image has to be deleted by our policies. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've been in contact with the flickr image user and he is willing to tweak the license to our needs, so I am hoping to be able to upload it to commons in the next 24-48 hours. MBisanztalk 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely the wrong angle, and who has ever seen yellow grass in England. Giano (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Much as I hate to interfere with Giano's editing here, but I must say I'm not convinced about the irreplaceability. While I appreciate that Giano with his expert eyes sees something important conveyed in this view that he doesn't see in the others, this "something" doesn't currently seem to be discussed and analysed in the article, so it is not clear how it would matter to the reader. On that account, I have no reason to reject the free replacements that have been offered. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, access to the site will not be granted for a very good reason, which is not for broadcasting over the internet. Anyway it's fine it's only a wikipedia article, what does it matter if it never bcomes full comprehensive, one house looks much the same as another, I'll stick one of Wollaton Hall in instead, I expect no one will spot the difference, or greatly care, if the attitude displayed here prevents them ever learning the difference. It's not as though its a page about an American porn star or computer game. The image also perfectly illustrated a pint here [18] that was perfectly explained, until someone decided that was not allowed. Now you are saying itcannot even illustrate its own page, and you want to replace it with a view from the wrong angle with the house looking radioactive with a faked sky in a see of yellow grass. Just brilliant.Giano (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that description there was indeed an interesting point. Why do you say that passage of text was disallowed? The image was deleted back then on purely formal grounds, and later reinstated. If you reinserted the image in the main article, couldn't a descriptive caption go there too? I'd certainly reconsider my vote here in the presence of detailed analysis of that sort. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has not been re-inserted there, the image currently there is one taken by an ancestor of mine 90 odd years ago! Giano (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giano and Risker. if the image is not easily replaceable, and taking the image is possibly a violation of the law, and there are no acceptable alternatives, then the image should simply be retained. Avruch T 21:44, 15 August 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned image of the t.u. Performing Arts Center. Probable copyvio (as stated by the uploader). — BQZip01 —talk 01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
violates WP:NFCC8: while this image is irreplaceable, it is not needed to understand the topic of the article (i.e. the university) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same misunderstanding as in so many other "historic" images. The fact that these two guys got honorary doctorates may be important in the article, but the image is not important for understanding it. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way to verify copyright permissions. — BQZip01 —talk 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The copyright permissions are not in dispute. This image is licensed as fair use. The issue is whether or not the image complies with the NFCC.
2.The permissions are easily verified by clicking the link (here) and noting the copyright symbol at the bottom of the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verifying the copyright permissions/source wasn't possible when I reviewed the source listed. Whether the site was down or there was a problem, I have no idea. I still concur with deletion as the image isn't necessary to understand whether or not someone visited the campus. The source given above certainly could be listed as a source for the article, if it merits inclusion, but the picture needs to go. — BQZip01 —talk 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Unused, probably unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned, with no chance of ever being used, and completely unencylcopedic. It's also most likely not depicting a "hobo" at all. This looks like a dorky college kid acting like an idiot. S.D.Jameson 05:38, 13 August 2008 (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.
— BQZip01 — talk 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/images/020326_conqueror300.jpg){kind=link}
