Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 1
[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, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Thenandnow19642007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hg3300 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Invalid FUR---virtually identical to standard cover —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, aside from the fact that I have no idea what a "FUR" is, this file is necessary for distinguishing between the original release and the subsequent reissue. You can clearly see the difference in dates and track listing by comparing the two. The file was added because the two issues are not identical unlike most rereleases where nothing changes.Hg3300 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The differences between the two covers are entirely trivial (or, if they are not, they are quite well hidden). The only difference that I can spot quickly is that the textual label "1964-2004" was replaced with "1964-2007". And this change is so simple that it can be easily – and indeed much more efficiently – covered with a verbal description alone. (BTW, "FUR" is jargon for "fair use rationale".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DON'T Delete. You clearly missed the fact that the list of songs on the front is completely different. I'm pretty sure most Wikipedians do have eyes and can spot visual differences much faster than having to read a line of text and having to visualize it in their heads. As for "Fair Use Rationale" just because you assume this image needs to be deleted does not make the image's FUR invalid.
- Delete The article is already illustrated by a different cover of the same product. This extra one fails WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already stated, the different cover is NECESSARY to distinguish between the two issues. There is no valid reason for deletion other than your ridiculous claim of it being "virtually identical" and there is another one representing the "same product." As I've stated, they are clearly NOT the same product, otherwise they wouldn't differ in the track listing and album artwork. Would you do the same for singles? "Who cares about the different artist, I mean it's clearly the same song, so we only need one image!" This is what you're telling me. Get off my damn case and stop fighting over something so trivial. Boo hoo. There's another image on this album page. Get over it. Apparently you think less is better. Who cares if the article has the most up-to-date and accurate information? Who cares about accurate images? You certainly don't. Hg3300 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free images should be avoided whenever possible. For most music product articles, it means that the article only can contain one non-free image (showing a single version of the cover). The differences between the different covers can be explained in text and so the differences fail WP:NFCC#1. If you have a copy in front of you and you wish to identify which version you have, the article already contains sufficient information: you check the track listing or the total running time. Besides, the visual differences between the covers are not critically discussed, so they fail WP:NFCC#8 and should thus not be included in the form of an image in this article. Compare with the articles Mac OS 9 (exists in multiple versions with presumably minor visual differences but only one version is shown) and The Beatles discography (lists multiple products but contains no non-free images). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see your point. The article is only using two "non-free" images; the examples you listed would require a lot more than two. I'm talking about two. Just two. There's no valid reason to remove the image other than the fact that you want to remove it. This is an encyclopedia, not a dry novel with no pictures. There's no harm in two images on the same article and your refusal to let it stay shows how trivial you are. Why not worry about more pressing issues on the site? Are you actually that bored that you need to make up reasons to piss people off?Hg3300 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free images should be avoided whenever possible. For most music product articles, it means that the article only can contain one non-free image (showing a single version of the cover). The differences between the different covers can be explained in text and so the differences fail WP:NFCC#1. If you have a copy in front of you and you wish to identify which version you have, the article already contains sufficient information: you check the track listing or the total running time. Besides, the visual differences between the covers are not critically discussed, so they fail WP:NFCC#8 and should thus not be included in the form of an image in this article. Compare with the articles Mac OS 9 (exists in multiple versions with presumably minor visual differences but only one version is shown) and The Beatles discography (lists multiple products but contains no non-free images). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already stated, the different cover is NECESSARY to distinguish between the two issues. There is no valid reason for deletion other than your ridiculous claim of it being "virtually identical" and there is another one representing the "same product." As I've stated, they are clearly NOT the same product, otherwise they wouldn't differ in the track listing and album artwork. Would you do the same for singles? "Who cares about the different artist, I mean it's clearly the same song, so we only need one image!" This is what you're telling me. Get off my damn case and stop fighting over something so trivial. Boo hoo. There's another image on this album page. Get over it. Apparently you think less is better. Who cares if the article has the most up-to-date and accurate information? Who cares about accurate images? You certainly don't. Hg3300 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bath, 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:{{{Uploader}}}#File:Bath, 2006.jpg listed for deletion|{{{Uploader}}}]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:{{{Uploader}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/{{{Uploader}}}|contribs]] | [[Special:ListFiles/{{{Uploader}}}|uploads]] | [[Special:Log/upload/{{{Uploader}}}|upload log]]).
{{{Reason}}} Bmo82 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2012 (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 00:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:STHome Soil.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leoboudv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not the object of analytical discussion, not necessary to make any particular point in the text understood. Fails NFCC#8, purely decorative use. Generic boilerplate rationale, fails to make any specific point about why and for what this particular image is needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not just a random scene because the Enterprise crew under Data, Geordi (and Dr. Crusher) first determine that crystaline life-form entity is a living human being after this entity is transported to the Enterprise for further study from Velara III. They discover that it can grow in size and multiply. This is when they make the crucial find that they have discovered a new life form in the 'home soil' of the planet Velara III which the Enterprise's scientists were terraforming--and unintentionally killing. This is why Captain Picard promises the crystaline life-form entity that Starfleet will stop all its activities on Velara III...because the planet wasn't lifeless after all--as everyone previously thought. The scientists on the planet didn't know this at all. They were terraforming the planet because as their director Kurt Mandl said, Starfleet told them the planet was devoid of life. (I saw the episode and I remember this) So, this scene is a critical part of the Star Trek episode 'Home Soil' when the Enterprise's crew's eyes are opened to a new form of life....plus it also shows the crystaline life-form entity. That is why it is appropriate as a screenshot for this Star Trek episode. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not sufficient to explain how important the plot element is in the context of the episode. What matters is how important the image is to help the reader understand the plot element. You have yet to make a case for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this screenshot, Data and Geordi know that the crystalline lifeform has a brain (and is a new life form) and is reproducing itself exponentially and growing in luminosity. They realize it blames all humans for the terraforming activities on their planet and are working frantically to monitor its growth before it grows to such a point that it can destroy the Enterprise. I thinks this is explained in the image's description Also, this was the only screenshot I could find which showed the crystalline entity with some humans--whether the scientists or the Enterprise crew. That makes it more appropriate as an image for this episode since it was the Enterprise's crew who discovered that it was a living being compared to the scientists who dismissed that it could be 'alive.' --Leoboudv (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The image does in no way help me understanding the subject of the article. Thus, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Secular world map2.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahmudmasri (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused .gif map without legend, there is a better, used map with legend - File:Secularmap.PNG Bulwersator (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no problem. Delete the image. I don't remember when did I upload it or why if there were other similar images, but I saw from the history of the image that I uploaded it based on User:Edward nz work. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this map is wrong. England and Scotland have state religions. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2012 (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 as F8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Coat of arms of Bulgaria Rousse museum.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TodorBozhinov (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused crop of used photo Bulwersator (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Commons; potentially useful image. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused file Bulwersator (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 17#File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg. postdlf (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it the uploader is not the photographer or original uploader so I can't see why we need a copy on en-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Me neither (and I was the photographer and original uploader). Yet it keeps being insisted upon. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When the photographer and original uploader support the deletion we have no reason to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Me neither (and I was the photographer and original uploader). Yet it keeps being insisted upon. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused and it is at Commons. The uploader seems to want local vrsions of files. I have asked why on his talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:UNUSED, current lack of usage is inadequate reason to delete free media. The lettuce ladies seem quite notable, being covered in several books about the interaction of feminism and animal rights, and so future use seems quite possible. Warden (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already hosted on Commons. The sole issue is whether we need a local copy too. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the nomination says. The copy on commons is not an adequate rebuttal to the unused argument because commons might decide to delete the image on the grounds that it is unused too. The best assurance for future use here is to keep this copy which we have here. Warden (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of current use by a Wiki-project is not grounds for deletion on Commons. Regardless, why wouldn't your rationale lead us to keep local copies here on en-WP of every image on Commons? postdlf (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC) (P.S. The Commons copy is used on en-wiki at present. This locally kept copy under discussion is not.)[reply]
- That's not what the nomination says. The copy on commons is not an adequate rebuttal to the unused argument because commons might decide to delete the image on the grounds that it is unused too. The best assurance for future use here is to keep this copy which we have here. Warden (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already hosted on Commons. The sole issue is whether we need a local copy too. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Already hosted on Commons and the original photographer wants it deleted. Wouldn't User:Postdlf, as the original photographer, be allowed to request deletion per WP:CSD#G7? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <pedantry>I'm the photo's author, but this local file was uploaded by another editor after I had uploaded it to Commons. So it's at least debatable whether CSD applies; that the previous FFD was a "keep" would also suggest not, given that CSD is supposed to be for uncontroversial and obvious deletions.</pedantry> postdlf (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zibrant 3 peaks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zibrant (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value. Is only contribution of uploader. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:30, 1 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zoe1231.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Walaha2006 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused image of Zoe Tay. It seems that we have no free files of her but the uploader is blocked and the author "Mili Chin" does not match the uploaders username "Walaha2006". So I'm not sure we could asume own work. However, I found no similar files using google. MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:US Public debt per GDP 1791-2006.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Citynoise (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused and per talk page it is disputed. MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (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.