Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

File:Sulfacytine.png

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 ⚡ 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, replaced by File:Sulfacytine.svg, does not follow WP:MOSCHEM Leyo 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are thousands of ways an image could be color-coded, no sense having one with no particular article-purpose. DMacks (talk) 02:40, 23 February 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:Sulfoxone.png

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 ⚡ 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, replaced by File:Sulfoxone.svg, does not follow WP:MOSCHEM Leyo 00:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are thousands of ways an image could be color-coded, no sense having one with no particular article-purpose. DMacks (talk) 02:40, 23 February 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.

Fake chemical elements

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. However, it should be noted that with only one exception, all of these images are also on Commons. Additionally, it should be noted that of those, with only one exception, they are all up for deletion over there. Users are encouraged to participate in the Commons discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake image - WP:OR. Although the caption clearly states so, the images are being used believing that they correctly illustrate the sample color. They do not (or at least there is no evidence they do) Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that the images may not correctly illustrate the sample colour (although most are based on reported details with the exception of those that have never been observed in macroscopic quantities), it is not true that the images are being used believing that they correctly illustrate the sample. The images themselves include captions that show that they are merely artist's impressions. If one thinks that they should go, what are you going to do with stuff like File:Simulated view of Naiad.jpg? Take a look at this, too: [1]. You will notice that it labels those images clearly as "image d'artiste" - artist's impressions. If we properly include a disclaimer that these images are artist's impressions, I don't see any problem. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Complete gallery of fake images: (the data being used to generate this images is at [2].)

No single reference is provided to support any of these simulations, and I claim at least some of them are not correct (see below): the green fluorine, bright blue Md, orange/yellow glow of protactinium/californium (can't have yellow glow in small crystals on a substrate - defies heat dissipation), etc. Francium picture is just a joke. This all is a blatant violation of WP:OR. Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...the fluorine is under pressure, and francium is meant to be a red vapour (as it would generate so much heat that it would self-boil). You're right about the Pa, Cf and Md though. However, it would then be nice to have a placeholder image going "Element has not been isolated in macroscopic quantities" if these were deleted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how can density of (free) vapor spatially fluctuate so much (it looks like fume), and how pressure can turn yellow-brown gas into green. Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (revising vote): however, create placeholder image going "Element has not been isolated in macroscopic quantities." or "No image of this element is available." Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing vote yet again): These images are in use on other wikis too; see my argument on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fake pictures of chemical elements. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, other wikis are using the images from en.wp? Or other wikis are using the same images from commons that en.wp is using? The former seems less likely (the whole point of commons is a place to share cross-wiki, and each wiki follows its own criteria and hosting of local-use files), the latter is out-of-scope for the .en discussion. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (note, most of the images in the gallery are actually on commons not en.wp so they are out-of-scope for deletion-discussion here. Instead, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fake pictures of chemical elements to discuss that subset. In general it serves no encyclopediac purpose to say "it might look like this if you believe some artist's imagination" for an actual real-world entity that nobody has made an actual free picture for. It does a dis-service to readers to suggest that its appearance is more factually established than it is, and at least some of images are disputed based on actual science reasoning. "Here is a known fake image of this thing" just doesn't seem worthwhile. Rather, some could be photographed and just haven't been (we don't draw stick-figures if a living person doesn't have a free image provided), and others either can't or haven't yet been available in sufficient quantity--that latter actually might be an interesting factoid to put in the articles. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherfordium

The rutherfordium image from there is copyrighted, so we can't use it, ~~but where's the problem with the others?~~ Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Info:

Fluorine: Fluorine gas, but only as photomontage, because fluorine reacts even with glass. It could look like that (under a high pressure, otherwise fluorine is nearly colorless), before it would corrode the glass and the gas would be used up.
It is possible to show real pure fluorine gas in a long (50-100cm) quartz ampoule. A 100% dry quartz glas ampoule (heated of at >= 1000°C) filled with pure and dry fluorine gas and melted closed it. Please read that too: real fluorine.
Promethium: Of course this is no promethium, but it could look like that: an otherwise typical lanthanoid, which however due to its radioactivity produces quite some heat and therefore on the surface quickly oxidizes to pink Pm₂O₃.
Polonium: This is no polonium, but it could look like that. A silvery, radioactive metal, producing so much heat that it gets liquid and ionizes the surrounding air.
Astatine: Of course this is no astatine, but it could look like that. Crystals similar to iodine, but darker in color than these, which due to the extreme radioactivity glow blue and evaporate to dark purple gas. This sight would only last for a fraction of a second. Such an amount of astatine would produce so much heat, it would evaporate almost immediately.
Radon: This is no radon, but it could look like that. Radon is said to glow red in discharge tubes, although it practically is never used for this, due to its strong radioactivity.
Francium: Of course this is no francium, but it could look like that. The melting point of francium is approximately at room temperature, but the highly radioactive metal produces so much heat, even in the amount of some milligrams it would end up in glowing fume immediately. However, such a large amount hasn't been isolated yet.
Radium: This is no radium, but it could look like that. In a totally inert environment, the otherwise very reactive radium is a silvery, faintly blue luminescent metal.
Actinium: Of course this is no actinium, but it could look like that. A soft, silvery metal, which is reported to glow blue. This is due to its radioactivity.
Protactinium: Of course this is no protactinium, but it could look like that. A compact chunk of the radioactive heavy metal produces so much heat that it glows red.
Curium: This is no curium, but it could look like that. Chemically similar to gadolinium, but highly radioactive, the metal produces much heat.
Berkelium: This is no berkelium, but it could look like that. The highly reactive, silvery metal is a strong β-emitter.
Californium: This is no californium, but it could look like that. The strong α and neutron emitter produces a considerable heat.
Mendelevium: Of course this is no mendelevium, but it could look like that. Chemically similar to Thulium, the highly radioactive heavy metal emits very energetic α-radiation.
Nobelium: This is no nobelium, but an illustration. Nobelium can only be made in very small amounts and emits strong radiation of various kinds.
Lawrencium: This is no lawrencium, but an illustration. Lawrencium can only be made in very small amounts and emits strong radiation.
Rutherfordium: Decay traces in a spark chamber, not of rutherfordium, but of a pion. This is a completely different, unrelated particle, but the decay of rutherfordium would make streaks there, too.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that File:Astatine.jpg has been nominated for featured picture before on the German Wikipedia! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The astatine image wasn't a candidate for a feautered picture. It was only a joke discussion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a fake image is a "fake", not others. Pure fantasy. Need we it? I think no, in a true encyclopiedia. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they aren't even high quality fakes. Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of you think the expression "Artist's impression of" can be used here? It is a convention that is about as old as the printing press; the exact phrase gets 5 million hits on Google.

I do not expect anyone who finds it necessary to pad their argument with an analogy between these images and stick figures to listen to this reasoning, but Artists Impressions are not OR and they most certainly are not fake. They are based on sound scientific observation, and declare openly their source.

Just one point to note - no source has been declared for any of the images (on wikipedia or at the original website). Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to delete are relatively speaking, fake, as they are not based on these considerations or any other, and do not declare that they are copies of another argument, or in the aforementioned case, that they are an inaccurate representation. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main for me is: it lacks any scientific evidence. Sorry it is simple pure fantasy, for our star treck fans :) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What about this [3]. Is this web site not considered a reliable source? Does this image appear to agree with the description of flourine? (scroll down to see "yellow" image). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That web site is a personal collection of nice photos. I don't recall seeing who that person is. For fluorine color see 1 and 2. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google-images and youtube have several images that appear to be actual pictures of fluorine, but I have not seen one that is free-licensed. The images-of-elements is the image we have now...it's a reliable source for what one person thinks it might look like without reference to why his representation has factual basis (and it does not seem to match the actual photo others note). DMacks (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears that these are fakes. It would be better to have real images from reliable sources. And each of the new images should state its reliable source, or be linked to its reliable source WP:V. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 26 February 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:Mechtanium Surge.PNG

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 ⚡ 06:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is used in List of Bakugan: Mechtanium Surge episodes, however, the image does not actually identify the video packaging, any of the character, or any other aspects of the television series. In fact, the image of the logo is indistinguishable with that of the toyline. There is also no critical cometary about the image on the article. Therefore the image provides no contextual significance to the article and fails criterion #8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 19 February 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.