Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < November 4 | November 6 > |
|---|
November 5
[edit]Maps of Illinois townships, part 2
[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 all, and wishing people wouldn't tag images with WikiProject tags. Just one more thing to separately delete, especially when the MediaWiki interface, for some unknown reason, will not let one delete a file and its talk page in one action via check-box. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
These files have been superceded by more detailed maps at Commons (see Category:Maps of Illinois) and are, as a result, currently unused. I proposed here and at Commons (here and here) that they be moved to Commons, but there does not appear to be any interest in getting them—they are, after all, lower-quality versions of content which is already on Commons. A trial nomination (here) to determine whether there is consensus on Wikipedia to delete all similar files ended with a result to delete. To avoid accidentally nominating images which are still in use, I will check and nominate the 1,000+ affected files over the course of multiple nominations; see part 1. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: File:City of Champaign Township Champaign.PNG is excluded from this nomination; although it is unused, a replacement at Commons does not exist yet. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. They were useful at one time, but we have no need to keep unused superseded images of any sort when licensing isn't an issue. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 7 November 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Franz Ferdinand - Walk Away (Alt).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Paper Back Writer 23 (notify | contribs | uploads).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2010+November+5%23File%3AFranz+Ferdinand+-+Walk+Away+%28Alt%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This alternate cover is not significantly different from the main cover to justify its use. — ξxplicit 04:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Concur with Explicit. This alternate cover is not different enough to justify it's current use. It might slip by if the the FUR was actually valid: read the last two comments: "The image contributes significantly to the article by illustrating the subject of the article" and "The image is significant because it was made by a famous artist" Unless I am missing something obvious there is zero commentary on how/why there was an alternate version nor does the article even mention the "famous artist" who created this alternative version of the single cover. Just to do a bit of research it seems the FURS are actually just cut and pastes because the FUR for File:Franz Ferdinand - Walk Away.jpg says the same. Ironically the FUR for File:Better.PNG makes no mention that "it was made by a famous artist" yet, based on one passing section of the article on the full album (You Could Have It So Much Better - Cover art) says, it seems the full album's artwork was based on this, *not* the singles artwork. Given that the image also fails NFCC 8 and, to take it one step further, is appears to also fall under NFCC 6 as, because of the invalid FUR, it fails Image use policy - Fair use images and can also be deleted via CSD F7. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Humphreyspenaltycheltenham.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Englishrose (notify | contribs | uploads).
- WP:NFCC#8 - Decorative image, no discussion about the image Mosmof (talk) 07:03, 5 November 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Humphreystrancele.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Englishrose (notify | contribs | uploads).
- WP:NFCC#8 - no contextual significance; non-notable image without critical commentary Mosmof (talk) 07:04, 5 November 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Boydscores.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Englishrose (notify | contribs | uploads).
- WP:NFCC#8, #1 - no critical commentary about image, missing contextual significance Mosmof (talk) 07:05, 5 November 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stephensonvscheltenham2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Englishrose (notify | contribs | uploads).
- WP:NFCC#8 - Unremarkable image of a footballer with his hands on his head. No critical commentary/contextual significance Mosmof (talk) 07:06, 5 November 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.
- 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lead azide.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by GeeJo (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned low-res image; replaced by File:Lead(II)azide.svg. Leyo 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Orphaned. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
azide.svg?lang=en){kind=link}
- 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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Falconanalysis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Fails WP:NFCC #3b. It's not clear why we need to reproduce all that copyrighted text in order to show the statue. Contrary to the description, the image also does not help the reader to "see the dimensions" of the statue. Sandstein 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if I was crop out an image of the statue? I think the falcon is very important in regards to the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that only a photo of the falcon itself would be unproblematic. Sandstein 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete per replacement at File:Falcon model.jpg. Good call, this image contains copyrighted text so shouldn't have been used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, superseded by the text-less image. Dr. Blofeld is the uploader, but Ed Fitzgerald has also contributed significantly, so we can't delete this under G7. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 8 November 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.
- 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Earth Wind and Fire Oakland Coliseum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pelau (notify | contribs | uploads).
- WP:NFCC#8 - Pretty generic concert shot that's not specifically discussed in the article. Mosmof (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The image also fails NFCC 1 because there is a free image available - File:Earth, Wind & Fire at 2008 US Open.jpg. It also contains a faulty FUR as the number one listed rationale states this image is being used for "critical commentary", as Mosmof pointed out, when it isn't. The image could either be speedied or semi-speedied under any of the following: The Enforcement section of the NFCC policy, NFCC 6 says the image has to meet "Media-specific policy", in this case it would be Image use poilicy - Fair use images (Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.) and/or CSD F7 Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 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.
- 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Brown Srt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Yasiths (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Obvious derivative work (note scan artifacts, mobile phone metadata, etc.); no evidence uploader has rights to release image. No source information ("where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified"), as required by WP:IUP - {{PD-self}} does not accomplish the latter. Эlcobbola talk 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Source is claimed to be the uploader; PD-self is enough to avoid an F4 deletion. It's possible that the uploader is an older person who took the photo, had it developed, and decided to take up Wikipedia many years later and upload the own work. It's quite unlikely, and thus this image should be deleted, but only slowly. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is an unambiguous copyright violation, although it may not be a mendacious one (uploader may well own the postcard - such things are easy to pick up from the curio dealers). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For an unambiguous copyvio, we'd need proof like a URL. Anyway, even if it's a published postcard (which to me seems quite likely), it may be free: no date is provided, so it could be old enough to be PD-old. It's ambiguities such as this that require a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Nyttend. It is not necessary to have a URL to determine an obvious copyvio. If an image can be shown to be copyright and is uploaded with a pd tag, that's an obvious violation of the rights of the copyright holder (ie a copyvio).Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus my point: you haven't proven that it's copyrighted. I agree that it's likely still under copyright, but proof like a URL (notice the "like" in my comment; I'm not saying that it's necessary to have a URL) would be needed to show that it's a blatant copyvio. We mustn't speedy delete ambiguous cases. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Nyttend. It is not necessary to have a URL to determine an obvious copyvio. If an image can be shown to be copyright and is uploaded with a pd tag, that's an obvious violation of the rights of the copyright holder (ie a copyvio).Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly no source is listed for the image. {{di-no source}} was the proper tag to use in this case. Beyond that there is zero information on the image at all. Straight up it fails the second "step" in the Image use policy - Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. See also the Adding images section of the policy. No valid reason this should have been sent here and should have been deleted on November 5. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly unhelpful comment: I think this image is the same as this one File:Kck Brown.jpg which is used here Kingswood_College_(Sri_Lanka)#Achievements best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment:Excellent find. Suffers from the same issue(s). Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - The uploader is possibly connected with the school which might well be the copyright holder and they may have legitimately uploaded these (and the other similar pictures) if they were working on behalf of the school. The uploader has an email on their page which might be worth using to getting in touch with them as they don't seem regular editors here. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- According to the college site (it has a horrid interface which stops you providing direct urls, select Kingswood College Kandy then select Our Founder to see what I am referring to) the college moved out of the premises in Brownrigg Street in 1925, which gives us a Terminus ante quem for the date of this photograph. The notion that the uploader took the picture can I think be dismissed, but this is right on the cusp of
PD-oldPD-US territory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- No it isn't. PD-Old relates to the date of author death, which has nothing to do with the date of creation. Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right - brain fart. I have refactored - it is potentially PD-US Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same issue. PD-US uses publication date, which also has nothing to do with creation date. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No true, but in this case the image is a postcard. While it is speculative, it seems unlikely that someone would create a print run of postcards (which would constitute publication when offered for sale, under the US definition) for a school that was closed. These sorts of things are usually sold as fundraisers. I agree that if the image was never published we are into different territory entirely, although US law would at that point take the date of creation as the start point if the photographer were unknown. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it is published is not relevant to the point: you don't know the date of publication. You know only a (possible) terminal creation date. At what source can we confirm it was first published before 1.1.1923? Do you believe it's acceptable to use speculation to support PD claims? If not, why mention this possibility at all? Small matter to restore a deleted image if support is later found; terribly irresponsible to claim PD without support. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree entirely, it is preferrable to delete than to retain dubious content, and I would have speedied this myself on the mere grounds that the uploader could not possibly have taken the original image (which has to have been created a minimum of 85 years ago), hence it was an unambiguous copyvio. You'll note I did not say that it was PD, only (I hope) expressed the view that it appeared to be more of a possibility than had appeared previously. I note you have not made the same observations to the editor above who first opinionated on PD old.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve not said you claimed it to be PD. The issue is that you brought it up at all, when it is an utterly irrelevant consideration in the absence of a source. It’s irresponsible and can only be WP:BEANS for speculation. OTHERSTUFF: we’re discussing the necessity of your comment; that another editor (indeed, the one who’s lack of judiciousness and policy knowledge is blatant and the reason we’re here in the first place) said something equally wrong is a separate matter. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And on that note, I think I have nothing more to say. Thank you for your contribution, the contents of which have been noted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve not said you claimed it to be PD. The issue is that you brought it up at all, when it is an utterly irrelevant consideration in the absence of a source. It’s irresponsible and can only be WP:BEANS for speculation. OTHERSTUFF: we’re discussing the necessity of your comment; that another editor (indeed, the one who’s lack of judiciousness and policy knowledge is blatant and the reason we’re here in the first place) said something equally wrong is a separate matter. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree entirely, it is preferrable to delete than to retain dubious content, and I would have speedied this myself on the mere grounds that the uploader could not possibly have taken the original image (which has to have been created a minimum of 85 years ago), hence it was an unambiguous copyvio. You'll note I did not say that it was PD, only (I hope) expressed the view that it appeared to be more of a possibility than had appeared previously. I note you have not made the same observations to the editor above who first opinionated on PD old.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it is published is not relevant to the point: you don't know the date of publication. You know only a (possible) terminal creation date. At what source can we confirm it was first published before 1.1.1923? Do you believe it's acceptable to use speculation to support PD claims? If not, why mention this possibility at all? Small matter to restore a deleted image if support is later found; terribly irresponsible to claim PD without support. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No true, but in this case the image is a postcard. While it is speculative, it seems unlikely that someone would create a print run of postcards (which would constitute publication when offered for sale, under the US definition) for a school that was closed. These sorts of things are usually sold as fundraisers. I agree that if the image was never published we are into different territory entirely, although US law would at that point take the date of creation as the start point if the photographer were unknown. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same issue. PD-US uses publication date, which also has nothing to do with creation date. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right - brain fart. I have refactored - it is potentially PD-US Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. PD-Old relates to the date of author death, which has nothing to do with the date of creation. Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 12 November 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.