Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 2

< August 1	August 3 >

August 1

File:Once Upon A Monster screenshot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy close as bad faith WP:POINT nomination; nominator has stated he doesn't actually want this deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Once Upon A Monster screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | Upon A Monster screenshot.jpg logs) –

NFCC8, orphan, shows trademark characters in a commercial product. Text flows fine without the picture. Just replace with a free substitute Alecmconroy (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as this is feels like a WP:POINTY nomination. Nominator removed image from article to claim it orphan, and is presently trying to dismiss my arguments in a discussion here [1] (also see [2] on my talk page).
But since Alecmconroy seems to want to understand why such images would be allowed: 1) Unless the game is released into the public ___domain, there's no free equivalent replacement; 2) the image shows a screenshot from a video to help understand how the video game mechanics (a primarily visual medium) are played out, 3) it shows an image of a character created by Double Fine and transformed into a Muppet-like creature , as described by the commentary in the text, thus supporting its inclusion by #8. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No free equivalent. Let's remember that phrase.
To help understand the subject of the article? let's remember that.
Image is described in the text. Check and remember.

Anything else? A video game is a BIG stretch according to the law, you know, and our foundation doesn't like to cut these things close. My interest is in news articles, not for-profit entertainment fancruft.

But we're not going to spend the rest of our lives not adding fair use images to news articles, so let's get this cleared up once and for all.. Are there any other secret handshake criteria in Sesame Street Videogames that a news events (e.g. a Parliamentary Hearing) would lack? --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Star Trek TNG Episode - 1101001001.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding anything in particular in the article, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless pseudo-FUR Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it, I'll play the fiddle. It's commercial, it's not a historic event, and one less TNG article at WMF is just one more visitor for Memory Alpha to pick up the slack. And I still don't really see how this is any different than video game stills, but it's way too late to find out tonight. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - infobox usage, the article itself is part of the critical commentary IMHO. A screenshot from an episode is most certainly valid fair use. Legal precedence is unquestionably on our side on this one - and Wikipedia precedence is as well (although not quite as clearly as the legal one, it still is on our side). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is most certainly not a Wikipedia precedent that every episode article is automatically entitled to one random screenshot in the infobox. Indeed, there are dozens of precedents of such images getting deleted; it happens every week. This is long-standing policy. Every such screenshot must individually be justified under NFCC#8, and it can only be justified if the specific image is the object of commentary and fulfills a necessary function in making specific contents of the article understood. It follows from this that an article that consists almost entirely of a mere plot renarration, as is the case here, can almost never support a valid screenshot use. – Note that in the present case a different image of marginally higher value has been uploaded over the old one since the nomination; I'm open to consideration whether the same deletion discussion should still cover the new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would have said to delete the original. But if WP precedent is to delete this image, then I think it's a poor one - for legal reasons as well as logical ones. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I uploaded the new screenshot solely because the old screenshot appeared in several other TNG episodes. --Sage Veritas (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes - I declined the di-speedy tag on this image since this discussion is going here. The FUR is about 50% incomplete, so if the image is kept that must be remediated at least. Also, if anyone cares, the image currently here is not the same one that is there now, i.e. a newer image was uploaded since the FFD nomination. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Home Soil.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random, generic headshot of two protagonists, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding anything in particular in the article, not even of any identificatory value, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless pseudo-FUR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. The reason: it's not terribly clear from the photo, but Geordi and Data are staring in amazing down a tube at what they're seeing (or something like that; it's been a while since I've seen it). In any case, this is actually one of the most illustrative shots of the entire episode. In fact, the makers of the show thought it was the most illustrative shot: IIRC they have used this very shot to illustrate the movie episode before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- We know what Geordi looks like; he has his own dedicated article, with an image. We know what Data looks like, same here. Presenting them has no individual value for this particular episode at all. We know what "staring in amazement down a tube" looks like; anybody can image that. This image has no explanative value for the article at all. It couldn't, because the article doesn't contain anything worth explaining to begin with; it has no encyclopedic content. The fact that commercial presentation of such episodes typically uses random images to "illustrate" them is of no relevance to us. Fan websites and TV program listings are free to prettify their presentations with as much visual sugar as they like; we have more stringent standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Magog the Ogre. This is an important, and highly photogenic / illustrative, shot in the episode as it's one of the first instances in the series to impart the power and versatility of Geordi's visor. This off-focus shot of two protagonists seems rather generalized; however, it is deliberately held for a number of seconds during the episode to emphasize Geordi's extraordinary senses (i.e. recognizing the non-artificial pattern wavelength of the crystalline entity) while Data, a highly versatile android, can see nothing. --Sage Veritas (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can add a well-sourced section in the article explicitly discussing this point, on the basis of the critical reception in the literature, you can use the image. Without that, your opinions about how interesting this shot is are of no relevance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HeartofGloryScreenshot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random, generic shot of some protagonists, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding anything in particular in the article, not even of any identificatory value, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless pseudo-FUR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Then why not delete every image imbedded in a Star Trek episode article? --Sage Veritas (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good illustration of the show. Reader may not be aware of the appearance of the pro/anitagonists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The show" has its own top-level articles, with lots of illustrations of the cast. Why do we need this particular image on this episode article? We don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the same reason we might ever need a fair use image on more than one article - it's useful for imparting knowledge on both - in this case, about the appearance of the characters in the show. The reader may or may not have access to the other article, or (more likely), the reader may not think to click on the other link to get a photo. A picture imparts a thousand words - in this case, I'd say it imparts more words than a thousand could, simply because it's about impossible to imagine this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we went by this logic, we would need a full set of illustrations of every major character repeated again and again in every single episode article. Plus a set of illustrations of every ___location, every part of the spaceship, etc. etc. What is special about this particular depiction of a few Klingons? Why do we need this, and not also another image of, say, Mr Picard? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the use rationale is incomplete and doesn't address several of the mandatory criteria. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00331111.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No description makes this unencyclopedic, request was made on 19 March 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be Window of the World. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC0033311111.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, request was made on 12 March 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be Window of the World. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00777 JPG.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a description makes this unencyclopedic, request made on 25 May 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a million generic sunrise/sunset images already. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00870 JPG.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, requested on 25 May 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a million generic sunrise/sunset images already. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00871 JPG.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, request made on 25 May 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a million generic sunrise/sunset images already. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00873 JPG.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, request made on 25 May 2011. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a million generic sunrise/sunset images already. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Istana Cair Paravel.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Non-free copyrighted image from film, lacks fair use rationale and duplicate of another file File:Cair Paravel.jpg Fallschirmjäger ✉ 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angel One.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random, generic picture of two characters, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed for understanding the article, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless pseudo-FUR Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my ST:TNG arguments above; this is an important screenshot to help the reader understand the episode. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tylenol package - tamper resistant.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted product packaging used to illustrate Tamper resistance. The same concept could be demonstrated using a free image of the tamper resistance measures without the copyrighted portions. Kelly ^hi! 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the history. On 25 July you tagged this for deletion. On 25 July I made corrective edits. On 2 Aug an administrator removed your tag with the comment "has rationale now". Now you are trying to start all over again without a reasonable explanation! This file is needed and there is not a replacement available. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the administrator you are speaking of from August 2. As noted by Magog, I only was saying that there was a rationale, but not that the rationale is adequate. This is an important distinction and my action should not be construed to imply that the image should not have been brought here for deletion discussion. My action gives you some additional time to potentially remediate the image, but if you do not, it will likely be deleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - replaceable fair use. The previous deletion declined was for a separate reason (not having a rationale vs this discussion which is about it being an improper rationale). A valid solution would be to blur the copyrighted portions of the packaging (c.f., http://www.galvanilegal.com/blurring-out-clothing-on-tv). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harborfreeway.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This {{subst:nsd}} was declined by an admin under the auspices that the uploader appeared to be the author. However, that is guessing on our part, and it does not make it a valid license IMHO - we cannot truly satisfy GFDL. I did notify Coolceaser of the original deletion tag and he did not modify the content of the page so I'm forced to conclude that either he didn't create it or he doesn't care enough about the image to fix the description or that he is so involved elsewhere it slipped his mind. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not guesswork, it's trusting the statement by the uploader that he is the author in the complete absence of any reason to suggest otherwise. We do the same for text contributions. TJRC (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader never stated he was the author. And we have a different policy for images than we do for text (c.f., commons:Template:GFDL-presumed). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader himself placed the GFDL tag on the photo, which is only consistent with ownership. There is no reason to think that that's false. If the photo appeared to be of commercial quality, or was similar to another photo, sure. But those facts aren't here. The template you cite to is 1) referring to Commons policy, not to Wikipedia policy; Commons policy is substantially more restrictive of IP than Wikipedia; and, more importantly, 2) is referring to implicit licensing, not express licensing as here. The Commons template is simply not applicable on either ground. That being said, I am changing my position to:
  - Delete as the photo has been an orphan for almost six years now, and is unlikely to be used in any article. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely bad quality, could easily be retaken if we ever needed this for some reason (which i doubt we ever would). Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Centralvalleyroad.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous nomination immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. TJRC (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- add'l comment, although I changed my position to "delete" in the above discussion of File:Harborfreeway.jpg, I continue to maintain my "Keep" position on this one. File:Harborfreeway.jpg is an orphan; in contrast, this image is used in Central Valley (California). TJRC (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2011 (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.