June 25[edit]
File:DN1.png[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wrong place Dom1986 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? —fetch·comms 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is not a Romanian Road Sign! I uploaded the image for use on my user page. For some reason Wikipedia decided to store the image amongst Romanian Road signs for the Romanian Road DN1. --Dom1986 (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infact all images in the File:DN1.png should be deleted as all of the images are unused. Please see DN1, the Romanian Road signs in File:DN1.png are old and have been replaced by File:RO_Roadsign_1.svg --Dom1986 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is not a Romanian Road Sign! I uploaded the image for use on my user page. For some reason Wikipedia decided to store the image amongst Romanian Road signs for the Romanian Road DN1. --Dom1986 (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? —fetch·comms 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Original file was improperly overwritten and then tagged for deletion. Original file has been restored but is also available on the commons as well as the svg version so close this deletion as it is now redundant and allow a regular "now commons" deletion to take place. ww2censor (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (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:Izzone.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Izzone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jacks457 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now PROD'd article, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, generally useless. —fetch·comms 13:32, 25 June 2010 (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:7 Koqas.JPG[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:7 Koqas.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ivanaj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete there is no freedom of panorama in Albania per commons:COM:L#Albania. ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no FOP. —fetch·comms 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All men visible in this image had passed away in the Battle of Decic in 1911, this monument ins located in the village cemetary of Koja Kucit, now in present day Montenegro, I dont understand why it's marked for deletion.--Ivanaj (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (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:Decic 7.JPG[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Decic 7.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ivanaj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete there is no freedom of panorama in Albania per commons:COM:L#Albania. ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no FOP. —fetch·comms 13:32, 25 June 2010 (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:Pretashzekaulaj1.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pretashzekaulaj1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Nuljaj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete there is no freedom of panorama in Albania per commons:COM:L#Albania so this is a derivative work and the uploader's PD licence is false. ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no FOP. —fetch·comms 13:32, 25 June 2010 (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:Pretashzekaulaj2.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pretashzekaulaj2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Nuljaj (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete there is no freedom of panorama in Albania per commons:COM:L#Albania so this is a derivative work and the uploader's PD licence is false. If you want to keep one image it may be possible to claim fair-use for one image but it would have to comply with all 10 Non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no FOP. —fetch·comms 13:32, 25 June 2010 (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:Caf fisher.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Caf fisher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Oliver Nouther (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Also File:Caf newham.jpg and File:Caf funnell.jpg and File:Caf evans.jpg.
- These are non-free images of living people, which are explicitly identified as acceptable only in very limited circumstances, and I don't tend to think that this is one of them. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: Because all these images are of living people and being used in the infobox to indentify the person then any image can be used for that purpose without the necessity of using a non-free image. WP:NFC#UUI is not relevant in isolation of WP:NFCC that requires all 10 criteria are complied with. Which WP:NFC#UUI do you suggest applies? ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing," obviously! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:NFC#UUI #12 continues with the proviso: "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image". Clearly the image is only being used to identify the person and as such is replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's my point. I think the images should be deleted, and – as you seem to agree – that sentence from WP:NFC#UUI confirms my point. Am I missing something? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:NFC#UUI #12 continues with the proviso: "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image". Clearly the image is only being used to identify the person and as such is replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing," obviously! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All. These photos are being specifically used for the encyclopedic purpose of indentifying retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. WP:NFC#UUI is quite specific. As these articles are about previous Air Force Chiefs who have now retired and are out of the public sphere no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose in accordance with WP:NFCC. Furthermore all 10 Criteria of WP:NFCCare complied with in these cases.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. These people's notability does not rest on their earlier appearance (they aren't notable because they used to look like that, they're notable for being military commanders; I guess that the "earlier visual appearance" clause refers to people who've had cosmetic surgery, or won beauty competitions or something...) and I do not believe that NFCC 1 and NFCC 8 are met. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly Rubbish. Really cosmetic surgery? That is a long bow!
- NFCC 1 No free equivalent is available and it is highly unlikely that free content could be created. Even in the scenario (which could hardly be considered possible) that someone managed to whip around to the retirement village and get a photo of the individual in their old age, it would hardly serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
- NFCC 8 A pictorial representation of the person in uniform, in an article where their notability rests in large part on their former position as a senior military commander significantly increases the readers' understanding of the topic.
- WP:NFC#UULP Is most appropriate in this regard. The taking a new free picture as a replacement is not possible and would most certainly not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career. These images are therefore acceptable use.Oliver NoutherOliver Nouther (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010
- As you know, WP:NFC#UULP clearly states that its only exception is for retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance. So our question is, were these people mainly notable because they used to look like that? As in, had they looked different, would they still be notable? Since we're not talking about famous actors of the 1940s, say, but people who were appointed to command a military force, it is clear that they are notable regardless of what they look like. If, as we have just established, the get-out-clause in WP:NFC#UULP does not apply, then the images must be deleted, obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another interesting interpretation. Of course their notability rests on their earlier visual appearance, particularly as a Military Commander in uniform, not as an elderly resident of a nursing home.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another incorrect interpretation. They would be notable whatever they looked like, therefore their notability does not rest on their earlier visual appearance. The Australian government would have still appointed these people if, say, they had ginger hair, or a mole on the end of their nose. They are notable for being military commanders, and there is no "visual appearance" criterion in the appointment of a military commander. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another interesting interpretation. Of course their notability rests on their earlier visual appearance, particularly as a Military Commander in uniform, not as an elderly resident of a nursing home.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, WP:NFC#UULP clearly states that its only exception is for retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance. So our question is, were these people mainly notable because they used to look like that? As in, had they looked different, would they still be notable? Since we're not talking about famous actors of the 1940s, say, but people who were appointed to command a military force, it is clear that they are notable regardless of what they look like. If, as we have just established, the get-out-clause in WP:NFC#UULP does not apply, then the images must be deleted, obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly Rubbish. Really cosmetic surgery? That is a long bow!
- Rubbish. These people's notability does not rest on their earlier appearance (they aren't notable because they used to look like that, they're notable for being military commanders; I guess that the "earlier visual appearance" clause refers to people who've had cosmetic surgery, or won beauty competitions or something...) and I do not believe that NFCC 1 and NFCC 8 are met. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all The only way these would pass WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 is if it was difficult for the reader to understand that they wore uniforms when they were in the service, which I feel strains credulity. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not only about uniforms (although that is a distinct advantage) but the ability to create a new photo that is recognisable. As these individuals have retired it is most unlikely that a new photo would be created.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (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:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by HereToHelp (notify | contribs | uploads).
- File:IPod Touch 2.0.png
File:IPod Touch Late 2009.pngRetained, see discussion- The copyright in question which makes these images FU is the icons. We have these three images of three generations of iPod Touch, all of which have the icons displayed. These icons are not so substantially different from another that understanding is impaired if readers do not see examples of the icons from each generation. As such, multiple uses of the icons under FU fails NFCC3.a because one use is sufficient. So we keep one use of the icons, and I suggest we use File:IPod Touch Late 2009.png, simply because it has the most icons. As a point of order, these images have been nominated before here, and I took that closure to DRV here. ÷seresin 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, oddly enough. There is no appreciable difference between the older generations as displayed in thumbnail; since the software can be updated the biggest difference is hardware, which can be taken in an uncopyrighted hardware shot. (See also File:IPhone free desktop.png, which I created so we can take photos with the phone on.) I appreciate you allowing us one FU image; it means you're concerned but not paranoid about copyright. If only we could manage that at iPhone... HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the nomination is clarified that the Late 2009 image is not being proposed for deletion (it is presently marked as such and listed above), I'm amenable to deleting the older images and keeping the newer one. If/when a fourth generation Touch comes out, the Late 2009 image could be replaced in turn. Fletcher (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't the first gen image be the one that is kept? For novels, we use the first hardcover publication cover image. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The cover of a novel is a superficial representation of text that does not change, or changes minimally, over the course of many editions. The icons shown on newer versions indicate dramatic differences in functionality. Besides, the first generation image is of low quality compared to the others. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't the first gen image be the one that is kept? For novels, we use the first hardcover publication cover image. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of having images in tables, but it looks nicer not to be missing any. Would it be possible to retain versions shrunk to thumbnail size? (If not, we'll figure something else out.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (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:Vampires of venice.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vampires of venice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned (though an edit-war is likely to cause this to fluctuate!), pretty much replaceable by text, so fails NFCC 1, and inessential to readers' understanding of the topic, so fails NFCC 8. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:16, 25 June 2010 (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:Vampire-queen.jpg[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: no consensus. I read through all the discussions, looked at the article, and looked at similar articles, and while both sides had good points, I was unable to mine a consensus out of it. I believe it would be worthwhile for interested editors to look at the other articles linked on Template:Doctor Who (series 5), and treat many of them as a whole, because the same points raised here could also apply to many of those articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vampire-queen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This ridiculously high-resolution image depicts something inessential to readers' understanding of the topic (to demonstrate the "horrific"—anyway a subjective term—nature of the villains is not necessary, and the word "horrific" can always be used in the article body if it can be cited) and thus fails NFCC 8 ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So reduce the resolution and excise the word "horrific" then - the image is essential as no textual description can portray with the same degree of accuracy the actual appearance of the aliens from this episode. Exxolon (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've just done both of those, so I say Keep the image as it conveys information that cannot be adequately reproduced in textual form. Exxolon (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the information it conveys essential for readers' understanding of the article subject? Would their understanding be harmed or limited if the picture were omitted? I think not. You uploaded a nice pic, Exxolon, but it's decorative and nothing but IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (I'll copy the answer I gave on the other image discussion at applies here also) -I'm not sure how to rephrase this again. The image aids the readers understanding of the article by giving them an accurate depiction of the alien in a way that text cannot. A textual description, no matter how detailed, will never be as accurate simply because of the subjective nature of the human mind - to give an analogy, before the film adaptations, anyone who read the description of Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings would have formed a different mental image of the character. Exxolon (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to make this any clearer. While it may aid readers' understanding, it is only permitted on Wikipedia if it is absolutely 100% essential to readers' understanding, and if the article would be significantly less useful were the image omitted. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that anything that aids understanding is 100% essential by default since we're trying to create the most comprehensive, cohesive and understandable article on any encyclopedic topic. Exxolon (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy states - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - I firmly believe that the images under debate do significantly increase readers understanding and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding - We're not in the business of making it harder to understand articles. Nowhere in that policy does it require "100% essential", only "significantly increase" - your argument is from a non-existent position and had I been more alert I would have noticed that on the initial occasion. However we are largely going in circles here - each of us believes we are right which is a poor starting point to achieve agreement. I've commented on your objection to my initial suggestion on your talk, I would think that if you are willing to agree that would be a much more productive way to address this issue than the endless back and forth here. Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you answer a direct question with either "yes" or "no" and then a short explanation: Do you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not answering this question because it's not relevant - you seem to be under the mistaken impression that WP:NFCC#8 only permits the use of a fair use image if it's "100% essential" or "impossible" for someone to understand the article subject without it. WP:NFCC#8 does not say that - it only requires the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - the image in question satisfies that criteria - I don't need to prove it's 100% essential or that the article is impossible to understand without it. Exxolon (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're refusing the question: thank you for being so candid. However, you do have to prove that the image's "omission would be detrimental to [readers'] understanding" of the topic (not merely of what the aliens look like, but you need to consider whether a perfect grasp of the alien is entirely necessary for the reader to understand the article, which is about the episode as a whole). You also need to check out the passage of WP:WHO/MOS#Images which states, Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use, e.g. "This image portrays an important plot point." While the image may rely on the plot to justify its use, it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That red section is from the Dr Who Wikiproject manual of style which has no policy weight in of itself - is it copied from an actual policy page? If so can you give me the link to that? Exxolon (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the consensus position on style from the Doctor Who WikiProject, a consensus which you apparently set much store by – you also appear to have (presumably deliberately) failed to reply to the first part of my comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for the clarification - I can now address it in that context. I hadn't "deliberately" not answered the first section as you've insinuated, I wanted to clarify that section before composing my response. I am considering this and will post it in due course. Exxolon (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delayed response, as you may have noted from my talkpage my internet access is sporadic at this time. I think we've come to the crux of the issue. There's no real way for either of us to "prove" empirically our respective positions here. As it's a completely subjective judgement I cannot "prove" that the image's inclusion benefits the article (though I obviously believe this) any more that you can "prove" that removing it does not harm a readers understanding of the topic. Given this, I have a proposal to stop this endless debate which is growing to resemble the Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. I will voluntarily remove the image from the article for the time being if you withdraw this FFD nomination. We then follow the suggestion previously made on your talk and take the image to the Doctor Who Wikiproject for evaluation (with perhaps invitations to other relevant groups to chip in) and discussion in which we both agree to abide by the consensus reached as to whether it's to be included in the article - if consensus is the image is appropiate, it goes in. If it's not, it stays out. Same for the other image under discussion and to be applied to any future image that may be suggested for inclusion on a Dr Who related article. What do you say? Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice idea, but if you remove the image from the article, then it will be automatically deleted, as it should be, so I fail to see what benefit the withdrawal of the FfD could do? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delayed response, as you may have noted from my talkpage my internet access is sporadic at this time. I think we've come to the crux of the issue. There's no real way for either of us to "prove" empirically our respective positions here. As it's a completely subjective judgement I cannot "prove" that the image's inclusion benefits the article (though I obviously believe this) any more that you can "prove" that removing it does not harm a readers understanding of the topic. Given this, I have a proposal to stop this endless debate which is growing to resemble the Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. I will voluntarily remove the image from the article for the time being if you withdraw this FFD nomination. We then follow the suggestion previously made on your talk and take the image to the Doctor Who Wikiproject for evaluation (with perhaps invitations to other relevant groups to chip in) and discussion in which we both agree to abide by the consensus reached as to whether it's to be included in the article - if consensus is the image is appropiate, it goes in. If it's not, it stays out. Same for the other image under discussion and to be applied to any future image that may be suggested for inclusion on a Dr Who related article. What do you say? Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for the clarification - I can now address it in that context. I hadn't "deliberately" not answered the first section as you've insinuated, I wanted to clarify that section before composing my response. I am considering this and will post it in due course. Exxolon (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the consensus position on style from the Doctor Who WikiProject, a consensus which you apparently set much store by – you also appear to have (presumably deliberately) failed to reply to the first part of my comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That red section is from the Dr Who Wikiproject manual of style which has no policy weight in of itself - is it copied from an actual policy page? If so can you give me the link to that? Exxolon (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're refusing the question: thank you for being so candid. However, you do have to prove that the image's "omission would be detrimental to [readers'] understanding" of the topic (not merely of what the aliens look like, but you need to consider whether a perfect grasp of the alien is entirely necessary for the reader to understand the article, which is about the episode as a whole). You also need to check out the passage of WP:WHO/MOS#Images which states, Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use, e.g. "This image portrays an important plot point." While the image may rely on the plot to justify its use, it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not answering this question because it's not relevant - you seem to be under the mistaken impression that WP:NFCC#8 only permits the use of a fair use image if it's "100% essential" or "impossible" for someone to understand the article subject without it. WP:NFCC#8 does not say that - it only requires the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - the image in question satisfies that criteria - I don't need to prove it's 100% essential or that the article is impossible to understand without it. Exxolon (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you answer a direct question with either "yes" or "no" and then a short explanation: Do you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy states - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - I firmly believe that the images under debate do significantly increase readers understanding and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding - We're not in the business of making it harder to understand articles. Nowhere in that policy does it require "100% essential", only "significantly increase" - your argument is from a non-existent position and had I been more alert I would have noticed that on the initial occasion. However we are largely going in circles here - each of us believes we are right which is a poor starting point to achieve agreement. I've commented on your objection to my initial suggestion on your talk, I would think that if you are willing to agree that would be a much more productive way to address this issue than the endless back and forth here. Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that anything that aids understanding is 100% essential by default since we're trying to create the most comprehensive, cohesive and understandable article on any encyclopedic topic. Exxolon (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to make this any clearer. While it may aid readers' understanding, it is only permitted on Wikipedia if it is absolutely 100% essential to readers' understanding, and if the article would be significantly less useful were the image omitted. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (I'll copy the answer I gave on the other image discussion at applies here also) -I'm not sure how to rephrase this again. The image aids the readers understanding of the article by giving them an accurate depiction of the alien in a way that text cannot. A textual description, no matter how detailed, will never be as accurate simply because of the subjective nature of the human mind - to give an analogy, before the film adaptations, anyone who read the description of Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings would have formed a different mental image of the character. Exxolon (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the information it conveys essential for readers' understanding of the article subject? Would their understanding be harmed or limited if the picture were omitted? I think not. You uploaded a nice pic, Exxolon, but it's decorative and nothing but IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've just done both of those, so I say Keep the image as it conveys information that cannot be adequately reproduced in textual form. Exxolon (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So reduce the resolution and excise the word "horrific" then - the image is essential as no textual description can portray with the same degree of accuracy the actual appearance of the aliens from this episode. Exxolon (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unindent. Options -
- Leave the image in the article while debate runs and consensus forms to avoid it's deletion and to facilitate ease of seeing the picture for everyone - this would be my preferred option as access to Wikipedia does not imply access to other sites.
- Remove image from article but invoke WP:IAR to keep image on wikipedia during discussion/consensus forming even though it would be a technical violation of fair use.
- Remove image from article (image would then be deleted) and link to offsite copies/originals (Less good from my point of view as they may not be accessible to everyone). If this option is used we would need editors willing to temporarily upload a copy to here so other editors who wished to evaluate the image but could not access the offsite copy could see it - such images would obviously be deleted immediately once seen.
- Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One—I'm fine with this, and confident that consensus will not form to avoid its deletion. Two—won't work; WP:IAR cannot be applied to important legal-based policies, as established in the ANI thread that you started a while ago. Three—I'm fine with this in general, but the "temporary" uploading of the image is not only completely disallowed but also un-necessary: there is no reason for anybody to be unable to access an image hosted on, say, ImageShack – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can apply One to both images under dispute at this time then. What do we do about future images? The whole point is to avoid drama by getting consensus to include an image before it's put in the article and there are reasons why editors can access wikipedia but not other sites - Parental Control software only allowing certain sites to be accessed, school/college access blocks to image hosting sites etc Exxolon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With reference to future images, I genuinely don't give a damn, to be honest. You are welcome to pre-emptively seek consensus before uploading; you are welcome not to: in fact, just as I am welcome to let sleeping dogs lie on occasion and am welcome to nominate any image for deletion at any time. (For what it's worth, while it is possible that people may have web access only to Wikipedia, there is no need for us to go out of our way to accommodate them, and in particular, we will not ever bend copyright requirements for such a tiny group of people.) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can apply One to both images under dispute at this time then. What do we do about future images? The whole point is to avoid drama by getting consensus to include an image before it's put in the article and there are reasons why editors can access wikipedia but not other sites - Parental Control software only allowing certain sites to be accessed, school/college access blocks to image hosting sites etc Exxolon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One—I'm fine with this, and confident that consensus will not form to avoid its deletion. Two—won't work; WP:IAR cannot be applied to important legal-based policies, as established in the ANI thread that you started a while ago. Three—I'm fine with this in general, but the "temporary" uploading of the image is not only completely disallowed but also un-necessary: there is no reason for anybody to be unable to access an image hosted on, say, ImageShack – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to discontinue contributing to this discussion as I have limited internet access/time and would prefer to be engaging in more productive activities here and it's not getting anywhere. I'll leave it to the rest of the community to evaluate everything and make a descision on this image, I will not be commenting further. Exxolon (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2010 (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:Loldesk.jpg[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: Speedily deleted under G7 criteria (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Loldesk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Dwayne (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unused, unencyclopedic and out of project scope. —fetch·comms 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per fetchcomms, *unused*..i dont need it anymore. Dwayne was here! ♫ 13:51, 25 June 2010 (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:Sfacs-calamba.png[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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sfacs-calamba.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Sfacs-calamba.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).
- OB Luckyman88 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2010 (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.