Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 September 8

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 8)
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The community has supported the idea that logos are significant for the understanding of articles about companies because the logo is intrinsically identified with the company. In sports branding, the logo of the franchise is as important for the identification of the team as the uniform (with its specific colors and stylistic wording) is and both are equally significant (the uniform may even be more significant) for the readers understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major_League_Baseball_uniforms edit

All these non-free images fail to signifcantly increase the readers understanding that could not be achieved using a free alternative. A free alternative has been used at Nashville_Sounds#Uniforms, and I see no reason this method cannot be used else where. I have notified the relevant wikiproject of this discussion Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't see how these two groups of images are so different; they are just differently tagged, one of them probably incorrectly. They are both user-created and show schematic representations of the trademarked (copyrighted?) colour patterns. Honestly, I can't judge to what extent there is a copyright issue, but if there is it applies to all of these. Or is the relevant difference that one set of images also includes a representation of the logo on the shirts, whereas the other uses only the colours? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference would be the copyrighted logos, on the hat, which is almost always at the start of he article. The text on the tunics may or may not be eligiable for copyright, depending on how generic it is [1]. Soccer/GAA/Rugby teams all use logo free uniforms. The shape of uniforms and patterns are too generic to copyright (as far as I am aware) Fasach Nua (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Free alternatives can easily be made as shown by the Nashville Sounds article. HurricaneSarah (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to increase the amateurish look of wikipedia, so there is less chance it would be mistaken for a real encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears that each team's uniforms listed in this category each have their own valid non-free use rationale attached to them. For instance, the Texas Ranger's page listed under this category notes, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of uniforms 1.) to illustrate the sports team in question 2.) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." I argue that the ability to differentiate between teams would be needlessly more difficult if deletion did occur, and the current setup also assists in clearly differentiation between current and past baseball uniforms. In short, this category and these images are valid and very useful resource to people looking for info about MLB teams on wiki, and should not be deleted. Monowi (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Monowi 100%. shaggy (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These are, as the images say, the personal artwork of an editor, and I'm at a loss to figure out how they are any less free use than a photograph taken by an editor, or how they are any less user-created images than the minor league uniform image the nominator cites.  RGTraynor  15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor. This is getting a bit rediculous. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More than the team logo, sports teams are identified by their uniform and their presence in an article on the team signifcantly increase the readers understanding of that team. No matter how hard you try, you can not convey images of copyrighted sports uniforms without using copyrighted aspects of the uniform. I would be interested in seeing a side by side comparison of Nashville_Sounds#Uniforms with the copyrighted version. -- Suntag (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Suntag and RGTraynor. These images convey something significant about the team (NFCC #8), and any proposed replacement would be just as much a derivative work, so they are not replaceable with anything less non-free (NFCC #1). Jheald (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are user created. Do any actually have a copyrighted logo? The ones I looked at have only stylized text, which is not eligible for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep and close Beyond the arguments above, this is not Categories for discussion, and not a single image within the category is tagged for deletion as required. This entire IfD is invalid. Resolute 04:27, 13 September 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.

Image:Collin.jpg edit

Image:Collin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ID218 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Iota Delta (AfD) BigrTex 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stoop.jpg edit

Image:Stoop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ID218 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Iota Delta (AfD) BigrTex 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nupelookbetter.jpg edit

Image:Nupelookbetter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ID218 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Iota Delta (AfD) BigrTex 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KriticallyAcclaimed.jpg edit

Image:KriticallyAcclaimed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ID218 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Iota Delta (AfD) BigrTex 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KriticallyAcclaimed2.jpg edit

Image:KriticallyAcclaimed2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ID218 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Iota Delta (AfD) BigrTex 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jdola.jpg edit

Image:Jdola.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, No context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mobelini.png edit

Image:Mobelini.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, No context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STAINOGOON.jpg edit

Image:STAINOGOON.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, No context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ComptonCAVIE.jpg edit

Image:ComptonCAVIE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ManeStain.png edit

Image:ManeStain.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cornbreadman.png edit

Image:Cornbreadman.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Demnuttz.jpg edit

Image:Demnuttz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, watermarking makes me suspect this may be a Copyright violation BigrTex 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STAINO.png edit

Image:STAINO.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gucecity (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic (bad crop of previous nom), watermarking makes me suspect this may be a Copyright violation BigrTex 00:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bad Manners - Special Brew excerpt.ogg edit

Image:Bad Manners - Special Brew excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bad Manners - Walking In The Sunshine excerpt.ogg edit

Image:Bad Manners - Walking In The Sunshine excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Basket_Case.ogg edit

Image:Basket_Case.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xihix (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. We also have two samples of this song (the other being Image:Basket Case1.ogg), which also is against our guidelines. BigrTex 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gurbakshchahal.jpg edit

Image:Gurbakshchahal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wsjreporter2007 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context, public domain in summary does not match CC license raises questions about legitimate copyright release BigrTex 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ClintCurtis.jpg edit

Image:ClintCurtis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClintCurtis (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, possible Copyright violation BigrTex 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fredrik.jpg edit

Image:Fredrik.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pono-spiuni (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Unencyclopedic - watermarked BigrTex 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jason_Kent.jpg edit

Image:Jason_Kent.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KidzProductions (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic (character on Myspace?) BigrTex 02:02, 8 September 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: 

Deleted.  Copyright violation. Replaceable. WilyD 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MurrayHighSchool.jpg edit

Image:MurrayHighSchool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Your1727 (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Madonna GiveIt2Me video1.jpg edit

Image:Madonna GiveIt2Me video1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • Speedy Delete - already deleted this image under different filenames from another user 3 times now if not mistaken, unremarkable unnotable non-free screencap, not discussed in particular in article and nothin that cant be described without words, just the artists pretty much, nothing notable. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 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: speedily deleted per CSD I8. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DET.png edit

Image:DET.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cacycle (notify | contribs).
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: Deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. —Bkell (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Economist 2007 10 20issue.jpg and Image:The Economist 2008 04 05issue.jpg edit

Image:The Economist 2007 10 20issue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halgin (notify | contribs).
Image:The Economist 2008 04 05issue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vijayr02 (notify | contribs).
  • Fails NFCC8. Non-free rationale does not suffice for the inclusion of image in the article. meco (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Copying my comment from WP:IMAGEHELP: The rationale claims the images "show" the economic events. They don't. They show one particular journalistic reaction to it (The economic events themselves are something that cannot directly be illustrated at all, except with tables, graphs and the like.) That particular journalistic reaction by The Economist is not a topic of encyclopedic analysis in the article. And even if it was, it's doubtful if an image would be necessary. The images are simple enough to describe with text if necessary ("On date X, The Economist ran a cover depicting a fat happy-looking piggy bank; some weeks later it ran another where the piggy bank looked damaged, implying that [...]"). Upshot is, fails NFCC8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The former image is now a well referenced historically significant cover documenting the credit crunch of 2007 and 2008 and is clearly within the fair use justification for magazine covers. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Non-free magazine can be used only to illustrate the publication of the issues of the magazine in question. They might be an acceptable non-free use for that. But they are being used here to illustrate the subject of the cover story. —teb728 t c 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Neither image significantly increases understanding NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was originally added for History of private equity and venture capital]. As per WP:Non-free_content#Images a magazine cover is not acceptable to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate. This is the case in the history of private equity articles and as such is appropriate. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The guideline in WP:NFC#Images 2 #8 is not an exception to the policy WP:NFCC: What the guideline means is that although a magazine cover cannot be used just to show what a person looks like, if its use fully satisfies NFCC, the use is acceptable. But the use of these images (and of the images in the next two IfDs) fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They illustrate a very nice article -- of rare quality and deepness. I ask wikipedians not to bother an author with XYZ123 rules. He may be discouraged from doing high-quality work in the future. Rules are here to help Wiki, not to destroy it. There are lots of magazine covers in Wiki. Take care of them rather than o fthis ones.
  • Delete - These covers do not help anyone understand the article. It's a piggy bank. That the Economist covered a topic relevant to the economy can be easily mentioned in this article without either one of these covers as proof (and certainly not both). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:02, 14 September 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.

Image:BoonePickens.jpg edit

Image:BoonePickens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Racepacket (notify | contribs).
  • Fails NFCC8. Non-free rationale does not suffice for the inclusion of image in the article. meco (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a historically significant cover that is non-replaceable and is appropriate in several articles about the history of leveraged buyouts and private equity |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-free magazine covers can be used only to illustrate the publication of the issues of the magazine in question. It might be an acceptable non-free use for that. But is is being used here to illustrate the subject of the cover story. —teb728 t c 09:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This was originally more than two years ago. As per WP:Non-free_content#Images a magazine cover is not acceptable to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate. This is the case in the history of private equity articles and as such is appropriate. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Urbanrenewal. From all that I can tell, it is acceptable under WP:Non-free_content#Images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeH07 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It illustrates that the subject of the article was on the cover of Time, in part to show today's reader what a "big deal" Pickens' takeovers were back in the mid-1980s. Racepacket (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Doesnt signifcantly increase understanding of the topic WP:NFCC#8 143.117.161.54 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a rare and very idiomatic picture, showing the essense of corporate raiding and special situation investments. Lamro (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The image is undiscussed in the article text and does not significantly increase understanding of the subject (NFCC 8). The image could be replaced with the text Time magazine featured him on the cover playing poker under the heading "The Takeover Game" (NFCC 1) CIreland (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Keep). Having reviewed the comments here (as well as the comments relating to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 9#Image:MilkenPredatorsFall.jpg]] which is very similar to this discussion), I really would like either meco or teb728, who seem to have exactly the same opinion on this and the other discussions to justify the existence of any of the Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The fair use rationale for this picture in several articles relating to private equity history is far more compelling than the use of the other covers in that category. My only question is if this cover is not acceptable, why wouldn't the policy simply state no magazine covers, ever, period because I find it hard to think of a situation that will satisfy these two users. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KravisRoberts.jpg edit

Image:KravisRoberts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Urbanrenewal (notify | contribs).
  • Fails NFCC8. Non-free rationale does not suffice for the inclusion of image in the article. meco (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly either replaceable or insignificant, depending on the actual purpose. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepFair use rationale is sufficient for inclusion in several articles with respect to Henry Kravis and George Roberts as well as the History of private equity. This magazine cover coincided with the peak of the 1980s leveraged buyout boom including the buyout of RJR Nabisco and as such is acceptable under fair use for magazine covers. This also establishes the prominence of the two subjects on the cover. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-free magazine covers can be used only to illustrate the publication of the issues of the magazine in question. It might be an acceptable non-free use for that. But is is being used here to illustrate the subject of the cover story. If there were a need to establishes the prominence of the subjects, the articles could say in text that they were featured on the cover; actually showing the cover would add nothing to that. —teb728 t c 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was originally added for History of private equity and venture capital]. As per WP:Non-free_content#Images a magazine cover is not acceptable to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate. This is the case in the history of private equity articles and as such is appropriate. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this picture is not replacable and Urbanrenewal is right about WP:Non-free_content#Images from what i can tell. Unless the picture can be replaced, it should not be deleted.
  • Keep. It is a magazine cover. For those wishing to delete -- do you have any replacement? Lamro (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg edit

Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).
  • Image seems purely decorative. It is used to illustrate a section on the awards the film received, which doesn't mention anything about the image. All the image really shows is that there is an apparently cross-dressing boy and mice. There is already a poster in the infobox, and the article doesn't really discuss anything that warrants another non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NFCC#5; image does not add any substantial content to the article and is entirely decorative. seicer | talk | contribs 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ya, agreed. Also seems to fail WP:NFCC#8, as it does not enhance the understanding of the subject (a movie about people that turn yellow). A perhaps irrelevant aside: the image is in black and white, so one is unable to discern if the boy is yellow. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image is not accurately described as "decorative", since a decorative image is one which is used only for aesthetic purposes, and does not relate to, nor add information to the article. In this case, the image illustrates the article about the film "The Boy Who Turned Yellow", which is a film which had a limited release, and which very few people have seen. The image is of the central characacter in the film, and is a screenshot which shows the character in costumes, and in situ. This, of course, conveys a great deal of information about the film, especially since it is such an obscure one.

    The placement of the image next to the awards section is irrelevant, incidentally, since images do not illustrate sections of articles they illustrate the article as a whole, and anyone who has dealt with any kind of layout for publication knows that there are many instances where physical restrictions or visual balance force an image to go somewhere other that right next to the text it relates to. Books, for instance, have their photos in centralised areas because of production problems, and magazines will frequently show a photo on another page from where the text appears, because of space limitations, advertising, etc. Here, the photo is occupying the first available space on the right beloew the infobox, a good place for an image to go in a short article. But the image relates to the entire article, and the idea that a screenshot of a central character of a movie is not an appropriate illustrative use of an image is strange, to say the lease.

    Incidentally, the article does not have a multitude of images. Aside from the image nominated, there is only the film poster in the infobox, and nothing else. This image conveys a sense of film, and helps to close the gap between film, a visual medium, and text. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg edit

Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of an actor in role used to decorate a cast-list section. There is no commentary, image is purely decorative and the article already features other images. If an image is desired for the cast list, a free image of one of the actors would suffice. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NFCC#5; image does not add any substantial content to the article and is entirely decorative. seicer | talk | contribs 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image and caption have been improved to integrate into article.-Cbradshaw (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image is not in any respect "decorative", since a decorative image is one which is used only for its aesthetic value and is not related to the article nor does not in any respect add to the article. In this case, a picture of a cast member -- in fact, one of the three stars of the movie -- provides a great deal of information. Not all pictures of actors are interchangeable, and a picture of the actor in costume and in situ in the film, provides the reader with a visceral sense of what the film looks like and how the director has approached the subject. In this case, the photo illustrates welll the fact that Powell and Pressburger did not deal with the Germans as fiends or monsters, but as human beings who were on the other side of the war. This is dealt with in the text of the article.

    The placement of the image is irrelevant, incidentally, since images do not illustrate sections of articles they illustrate the article as a whole, and anyone who has dealt with any kind of layout for publication knows that there are many instances where physical restrictions or visual balance force an image to go somewhere other that right next to the text it relates to. Books, for instance, have their photos in centralised areas because of production problems, and magazines will frequently show a photo on another page from where the text appears, because of space limitations, advertising, etc. Here, the photo is occupying some space that would otherwise be whitespace, a good place for an image to go. But the image relates to the entire article, and the idea that a screenshot of a star of a movie is not an appropriate illustrative use of an image is strange, to say the lease.

    the impression is also given that the article has a multitude of images, but this is not the case. Aside from the image nominated, there is only the film poster in the infobox, and one other screenshot showing the other stars of the film. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Steamboat Bill, Jr. Poster.jpg edit

Image:Steamboat Bill, Jr. Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobet (notify | contribs).
  • There are already two other non-free promotional images in the article, and the DVD is not mentioned at all apart from in the caption of this image. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted under csd-g7. It was previously used in the infobox, and two better images have been added since. Tacking the image at the end of the article adds no value to it. Since I originally uploaded it, there isn't much sense in prolonging this discussion. - Bobet 10:37, 8 September 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: deleted. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image is a head shot of an actor playing a role from the movie. The "keep" argument is very eloquent but is original research and/or opinion. No sourced commentary to support the argument to keep is in the article. -Nv8200p talk 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg edit

Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of an actor in role used to decorate a cast-list section. There is no commentary, image is purely decorative and the article already features other images. If an image is desired for the cast list, a free image of one of the actors would suffice. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NFCC#5; image does not add any substantial content to the article and is entirely decorative. seicer | talk | contribs 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like the other images nominated on this date, this image is not in any respect "deocrative", since a decorative image is one which is used only for its aesthetic value and is not related to the article nor does not in any respect add to the article. In this case, a picture of a cast member -- in fact, the male star of the movie, James Mason -- provides a great deal of information. Not all pictures of actors are interchangeable, and a picture of the actor in costume and in situ in the film, provides the reader with a visceral sense of what the film looks like and how the director has approached the subject. In this case, Mason's look, the way he slouches in his chair, the slope of his shoulders, and his had clutching a drink, give the reader a visceral sense of the persona of the character Mason is playing. In a glance, one can see that this is a defeated man, at the end of his rope, and it's certainly not the James Mason of "Lolita" or "The Seventh Veil".

    The placement of the image is irrelevant, incidentally, since images do not illustrate sections of articles they illustrate the article as a whole, and anyone who has dealt with any kind of layout for publication knows that there are many instances where physical restrictions or visual balance force an image to go somewhere other that right next to the text it relates to. Books, for instance, have their photos in centralised areas because of production problems, and magazines will frequently show a photo on another page from where the text appears, because of space limitations, advertising, etc. Here, the photo is occupying some space that would otherwise be whitespace, a good place for an image to go. But the image relates to the entire article, and the idea that a screenshot of a star of a movie is not an appropriate illustrative use of an image is strange, to say the lease.

    the impression is also given that the article has a multitude of images, but this is not the case. Aside from the image nominated, there is a poster in the infobox, and the cover of the DVD -- which is the one image that could be removed if necessary -- and other than that there is only a screenshot showing the other star of the film, Helen Mirren. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:45, 12 September 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 discussion was: keep. It looks as if the nominator's concerns were addressed and reworking of the article and caption have added to the significance of the image to the article. -Nv8200p talk 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Joanna-bot.jpg edit

Image:Joanna-bot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cbradshaw (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of an actor in role used to decorate a cast-list section. There is no commentary, image is purely decorative and the article already features other images. If an image is desired for the cast list, a free image of one of the actors would suffice. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure this is quite true. According to their rationales, the underlying purpose of this image and the one below is to show how the film conveyed the "altered" nature of the Stepford Wives. So for the image below, the rationale reads "To illustrate an image of the perfect Stepford wife. This particular image was chosen to illustrate her beauty, but also represents the houseware (apron) as well as housework (Just baked a casserole and delivering it to a neighbor)." This image shows the shock moment when Joanna meets her unfinished double -- note the crude skin, the empty black eyes. The pics are notable in showing how the film created a visual image of the complaisant "Stepford wife" which powerfully entered popular culture. Their placement next to the cast list I think is just a layout choice - they fit well into the natural white space there. Keep. Jheald (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's so significant, how come it has just been lugged into a cast-list section? It doesn't currently appear to illustrate anything in particular. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks to me that that could be fixed, just be tweaking the caption. Jheald (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Carol Van Sant, below, someone altered the layout of the page. It was initially in the plot section, meant to contrast with the "natural" picture of Ross as "Joanna" above. Incidently, a current pic of the actor would not suffice because it is a picture of a character, not an actor, and there would be no way to have the actor recreate a free image of the character over 30 years later. As with the image below, I will see if reorganizing the layout makes this more clear. Keep-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page layout has been altered. Suggestions on a better caption?-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless article is improved. In order to pass NFCC8+1, a movie screenshot should be integrated in the text in such a way that it serves as an illustration for a specific, non-trivial, well-sourced point of analysis that is explicitly discussed in the text and which needs this visual support to be adequately understood. I can see that this image may in fact have that potential. A special effect such as the black empty eyes and their shocking surprise effect may well be something that could be analysed in this way. But it has to be done explicitly. (The present version [2] is not yet satisfactory in this respect; note that the caption doesn't even adequately name what it shows.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. I have made the connection more clear and been more explicit, also strengthening the text to show a stronger through-line with Joanna's vision (as a photographer) and her eyes--the windows to the soul. Let me know if you have more feedback.-Cbradshaw (talk) 15:33, 9 September 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 discussion was: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no sourced commentary in the article that Carol van Sant was either controversial as the caption says or that the image illustrates any of the characteristics presented in the fair use rationale. -Nv8200p talk 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the image and will keep based on an agreement to rework the caption and text to meet NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carol Van Sant.jpg edit

Image:Carol Van Sant.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cbradshaw (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of an actor in role used to decorate a cast-list section. There is no commentary, image is purely decorative and the article already features other images. If an image is desired for the cast list, a free image of one of the actors would suffice. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. According to the image rationale, the image is intended to be illustrative, not just decorative: "To illustrate an image of the perfect Stepford wife. This particular image was chosen to illustrate her beauty, but also represents the houseware (apron) as well as housework (Just baked a casserole and delivering it to a neighbor)." Keep. Jheald (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's so significant, how come it has just been lugged into a cast-list section? It doesn't currently appear to illustrate anything in particular. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, this could be fixed, by adding some of the rationale explanation from the image page to the image caption on the article. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has altered the layout of the page. It was originally intended to illustrate not only a "perfect" Stepford wife, but also the controversial casting of Nanette Newman, which led to the author and screenwriter to be displeased with the wardrobe design in the film in order to accomodate Newman's body type. This is explained in the production section. I believe that is referenced in the caption. I will see if adjusting the layout makes this more clear. Keep-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Layout has been fixed. What do I need to add to the caption to clarify the reasoning?-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No reason. Placed next to the relevant paragraph, the image makes perfect sense. Jheald (talk) 16:39, 8 September 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 discussion was: delete. There is no commentary in the article about the style of the film, the period of the film or why this image is important to the film so the image is not significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SBR03.jpg edit

Image:SBR03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SteveCrook (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of actors in role used to decorate a cast-list section. There is no commentary, image is purely decorative and the article already features other images. If an image is desired for the cast list, a free image of one of the actors would suffice. The fair use rationale claims it is displaying the style of the film- I can see no such discussion in the article, and the fact it is placed in the cast list implies that it is not particularly useful in aiding that description anyway. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your copy & paste response often seems to say "a free image of one of the actors would suffice". Do you allow for the fact that we're dealing with older films and there aren't any free images of the actors? -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a free image of both of those actors on Wikimedia Commons, but, even if there wasn't, an image isn't necessary- they're decorative. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be improved with a text expansion. I don't agree that the free images are useful. Is it a picture of the two actors in characater together?-Cbradshaw (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Small Back Room is another obscure Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger film which has been seen by few people, and needs some visual help from imagery to cross the gap between film, a visual medium, and text. In this case, the photo shows the two stars of the film, in costume, and in relation to each other. The only other image in the article - for which it was extremely hard to find any kind of images - is a DVD cover in the infobox, so it's not as if this article is full of a multitude of images.

    The placement of the image next to the cast list is irrelevant, since images do not illustrate sections of articles, images illustrate the entire article they appear in. The suggestion that an image is appropriate only in a particular place in a short article is silly, since anyone who has dealt with any kind of layout for publication knows that very often physical restrictions or visual balance will force an image to go somewhere else other than right next to the text it illustrates. Books, for instance, have their photos in seperate sections, and magazines very often shift images to a convenient spot where space restrictions (or needs) make it necessary to go. Here, the image is filling up what would otherwise be empty whitespace, which is a good place for an image to go. Nevertheless, it doesn't illustrate the cast section, it illustrates the entire article.

    It is a commonplace in film articles on Wikipedia for a picture of cast members to illustrate the text, and this usage cannot be described as "decorative" since the subject of the image is the subject of the article and, the image provides a variety of kinds of information about the film: as they say "an image is worth a thousand words". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The free images of both of those actors on Wikimedia Commons are from Black Narcissus which was very different in style from The Small Back Room. The images of these actors from this film also show the style of the film. Black Narcissus is a Technicolor costume drama set in the Himalayas, The Small Back Room is a British noir set in wartime London. Everything about them is very different and a simple image illustrates this much better than lots of words -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:30, 12 September 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: 

keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bela Lugosi as Dracula.jpg edit

Image:Bela Lugosi as Dracula.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bilttd biscoi (notify | contribs).
  • There is (surprisingly) little commentary on Lugosi as Dracula in the article, and this image appears next to a list- it is decorative. I would be surprised if there were no free images of Lugosi as Dracula (from old trailers, perhaps?) but there are certainly images of Lugosi- if a decorative 'Lugosi became the archetypal Dracula' image is desired, one of them would suffice. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of the image is to show Dracula as played by Logosi, not Lugosi himself. If it's really realistic that there might be a clean image from a trailer, then I suppose this image would then have to be considered replaceable. But it would be a shame to lose such a well-chosen and clean one. Note: According to WP:IFD here discussion pages of articles using the images in question should be notified of their potential deletion. You don't appear to have been doing this. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that's the point of it, but as Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula isn't really discussed that much, the image is left as decorative- if a decorative image is desired, a free image of the actor would be fine. As for the talk page notifications, I've never done that, I consider it spammy. I notify the original uploaders, and add an image caption (if Twinkle is in the mood). If that should absolutely be done, I recommend you leave a note for the Twinkle developers. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the purpose of the article is to survey Dracula in popular culture. As the article says: [in] the 1930s and 1940s, the Universal Studios horror films made Dracula a household name ... The 1931 film version of Dracula starred Lugosi and was directed by Tod Browning. It is one of the most famous versions of the story and is commonly considered a horror classic. In 2000, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. Lugosi's performance defined the role and became iconic. So the picture is not "just decorative". By including the picture, the reader's understanding of the topic "Dracula in popular culture" is broadened and enhanced. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying that it's fine for there to be an image of every one of the incarnations of Dracula on that page? Lugosi's Dracula is barely discussed on the page. If a discussion of Lugosi's appearance as Dracula was included, I would not be opposed to the image. As it is, Lugosi is mentioned, and so two images of him are added (I don't care if it's one file- it's still two images). This is completely inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We haven't got an image of every one of the incarnations of Dracula on that page. We have precisely five. Which seems about right to survey the variety of film interpretations of the role, for an article on Dracula in popular culture. It usefully illustrates both the similarities and differences in classic popular film images of the character. As quoted above, it was Lugosi's portrayal that "made Dracula a household name". It definitely belongs.
            • Furthermore, having both images is actually quite useful I think. The 1948 image, from when Lugosi was 66, show the look that was parodied eg in the Munsters. But it's easy to forget that this was not the image that made Lugosi's identification in the part. The 1931 image shows a much leaner, smoother skinned, tauter, more powerful figure; this was the image that made the Dracula movie. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there was this kind of analysis in the article, I would have no issue with the inclusion. As it stands, it says 'Lugosi was in a few films about Dracula TWO IMAGES'. I mentioned the lack of other images, as if one is included of Lugosi, considering the lack of commentary, there should be images of others. Has anyone attempted to locate a free image, perhaps from a trailer? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 8 September 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.

Image:Dracula73.jpg edit

Image:Dracula73.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bilttd biscoi (notify | contribs).
  • Little commentary in the article, the appearance of this Dracula is not discussed at all. This film is discussed for only a single paragraph, the image is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 8 September 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: 

keep this and the next one below; has turned out to be free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LOMAC - MiG-29 1.jpg edit

Image:LOMAC - MiG-29 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • This image does not seem to be displaying anything in particular- it just seems to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot, and is purely decorative. It's also very large. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably, higher resolution is justified, to allow the reader to properly judge the actual quality of the in-game animation -- presumably, a major selling point of the title. It seems not inappropriate for an article to convey some idea of the variety of the views one might encounter in playing the game. Keep. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is not discussed, at all. I'm really not seeing any justification for it. There are three screenshots, apparently chosen at random due to their lack of relation to the text. There's no way they're all justified. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, there could more critical commentary on the animation and the variety of gameplay in the game, for these images to be illustrative of. But, not knowing anything about the game, my understanding of the quality of the animation and the variety of views was significantly enhanced by seeing these images - particularly at high resolution. And three images is no more than a minimum that a magazine review would consider justified fair use. Jheald (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're not a magazine article, we use much less non-free content than other sources. And no, the images do not need to be that large- what do they show now, that they wouldn't show at a much smaller resolution? They show the detail, granted, but if the detail needs to be shown (there is sourced discussion of the detail of the cockpits in the article) then a shot of a small area of screen at high resolution would be fine. These ultra-hi-res shots are blatantly contrary to the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well neither were the previous 2 screenshots by that logic, if you consider one of the game's planes "nothing in particular". What should it display then? I think my screenshots more than quality for fair use and are also far better than the previous 2, which really didn't do the game justice. Gamer112 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can shrink it down if that's a problem but honestly why remove it? This article is in a terrible state as it is, these pictures just add that little edge to it. Gamer112 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that they look good, but non-free content should be used as sparingly as possible. Please review our guidelines on non-free content and our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, LOMAC was an Ubisoft game and as such is free. See Commons:Template talk:Attribution-Ubisoft. - Dammit (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LOMAC - Su-27 Screen 1.jpg edit

Image:LOMAC - Su-27 Screen 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • This image does not seem to be displaying anything in particular- it just seems to be a screenshot for the sake of having a screenshot, and is purely decorative. It's also very large. J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was necessary since the previous 2 were small, low-quality and didn't really show the full potential of the game. The previous two were also of a cockpit and landed plane, so how is this one any different? Gamer112 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can shrink it down if that's a problem but honestly why remove it? This article is in a terrible state as it is, these pictures just add that little edge to it. Gamer112 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that they look good, but non-free content should be used as sparingly as possible. Please review our guidelines on non-free content and our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay a compromise then? 1 lower resolution screenshot or something? Gamer112 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at full resolution, per my comment on the previous image. Jheald (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An image of this resolution is not justified, I don't think there's any real debate about that. There are three images apparently chosen at random (no real relation to what is discussed). Do you support keeping all three? J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider there is debate about it. As Gamer112 says, low resolution doesn't do justice to the quality of the game. The higher resolution is conveying something more, and relevant to the topic, than low resolution cut-downs. Jheald (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The graphics of all modern games can only be properly displayed at incredibly high resolution- we don't have ultra-high-res shots on the majority of articles. The graphics are barely discussed in the article anyway, and, as I say, these aren't really of anything. It's not like the graphical weather effects are discussed, and so there's a screen-cap showing weather- they're just pretty pictures added to make the article look nice. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lol, I think your just focusing on stuff you want/don't want to see here. Where exactly is the weather a subject in either of the screens? Their just pictures of the planes and cockpits to show how incredibly detailed and realistic this game is. It's one of it's major selling points. I realise this may not be apparent to people who haven't played it so I'll add in some details to the article when I have some free time but this game is renowned for it's details, that's what I was aiming for there.

I really don't see how an ordinary person looking at those screens could mistake it for anything else? Gamer112 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it has to be scaled down though? That is the default screenshot res that comes with the game, I haven't altered those images in anyway. Nevertheless, I'll get rid of the current screens and replace them with one "relevant" image. Although bare in mind, this IS a combat fight simulator, so HOW are images of the planes included not relevant?? Gamer112 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our non-free content guidelines and non-free content criteria- images should only be as large as they need to be. The example of the weather was one possible situation where a screenshot would be required- my point is that these images are completely different, and seem to be primarily decorative. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about half the images in these articles too: Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, Total Annihilation, Starcraft.

That they're simply there to "show off" some nice graphics or gameplay. Isn't that the point? So a picture of a bear in a bear article to illustrate the subject is purely "decorative" unless it's showing something described in the article? I don't think that's policy. I'll try to incorporate them into the article better as soon as I have some time, some patience and you'll see differently. Gamer112 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the policy for non-free content. Please follow the above editor's advice and familiarize yourself with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Mosmof (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wait you agree with me? Gamer112 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof is pointing out that that is very much policy with regards to non-free images. Please read our non-free content guidelines and non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? And "that" would be..... I'm sorry its just your so convoluted.. Gamer112 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, same reason as the other LOMAC screenshot. - Dammit (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for that Dammit, had no idea. Case closed then I'm leaving them there. Gamer112 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non descriptive screen shot. Far too big to really be fair use and seems to be of the best quality instead of low res. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undead, it's free content. There's an OTRS from UbiSoft. No reason to delete. Jheald (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Far too big to really be fair use and seems to be of the best quality instead of low res." Christ sake read the LISCENCE AGREEMENT: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Attribution-Ubisoft, NONE of that applies here, they're free images. Sheesh. Gamer112 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were free, the uploader should have stated that. That is the obvious part. How are we all supposed to know it's a free screenshot because ubisoft stated it? The image has a non-free license which leads us all to believe that it's a non free screenshot. If you want us to believe it's a free screenshot, then bring over the correct license for the image. If it were licensed correctly, it would have never came to IfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:00, 15 September 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.

Image:Bath-Water-Adrian.JPG edit

Image:Bath-Water-Adrian.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StelaXOXO (notify | contribs).
  • Extremely bad screen shot. So unclear that you cannot even tell who it is that is singing. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:05, 8 September 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. No consensus to delete. -Nv8200p talk 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:David Nail.jpg edit

Image:David Nail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Biscuitsngravy (notify | contribs).
  • Quality too low to be of any use. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if there is a better image it would be being used on the article. It's not the best image in the world but it's better than no image at all, and I would argue it is still useful as you can tell what the man looks like. Million_Moments (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Million Moments. Can the image be made smaller (perhaps outside of the Info Box) so it does not pixalate?-Cbradshaw (talk) 22:08, 10 September 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.

Image:Britsometimes.jpg edit

Image:Britsometimes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Greatz00 (notify | contribs).
  • Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist Million_Moments (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_September_8&oldid=1142500054"