| < October 11 | October 13 > |
|---|
October 12
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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Houstonhelmet.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Msr iaidoka (notify | contribs).
- This image is a copyright violation. The image does not meet the non-free content criteria for fair use on the basis that it is replaceable. Prior to the uploading of this file, a free equivalent existed that was obtained from here. Even if the previous version didn't exist, it could be argued that a free equivalent could reasonably be created. Thus, it should be deleted. Brian Reading (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think images from http://www.nationalchamps.net/Helmet_Project/ are free? The conditions plainly state "You may feel free to copy the helmet pictures on these pages and use them (in moderation) on your own non-commercial conference, school, or personal web pages.(...)". That is not a free license, it's a conditional non-commercial only type license so those images are all non-free as well. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, regardless. That's not the argument here. The argument is that the image specified is non-free, and doesn't belong. Brian Reading (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think images from http://www.nationalchamps.net/Helmet_Project/ are free? The conditions plainly state "You may feel free to copy the helmet pictures on these pages and use them (in moderation) on your own non-commercial conference, school, or personal web pages.(...)". That is not a free license, it's a conditional non-commercial only type license so those images are all non-free as well. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AFC-Throwback-Uniform-CLE.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JohnnySeoul (notify | contribs).
- This image is used as decoration on 10 separate articles, where it fails WP:NFCC#8. It may possibly be usable at Cleveland Browns, but even there, it is not at all clear that readers need to see the team's uniform to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the uniform worn for that season. It will stay. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unless you provide a convincing reason why the image passes WP:NFCC#8 ("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"), it won't. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the uniform used during that season. Its a visual aide. Why are you picking the Cleveland Browns when this is the way it is for every NFL team's previous seasons? Furthermore, if this is the case, then why have a picture for any article? If I type in Dan Marino, his article shows up and there's a picture of him. This is just an example, but going by what your are saying, his picture should be deleted too. Stop being a Wiki-bully. A few of us have put a lot of hard work and time into creating uniforms for the NFL and they are greatly appreciated. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just the first one I came across. As for Dan Marino, that page has a free image, which are all welcome. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the uniform used during that season. Its a visual aide. Why are you picking the Cleveland Browns when this is the way it is for every NFL team's previous seasons? Furthermore, if this is the case, then why have a picture for any article? If I type in Dan Marino, his article shows up and there's a picture of him. This is just an example, but going by what your are saying, his picture should be deleted too. Stop being a Wiki-bully. A few of us have put a lot of hard work and time into creating uniforms for the NFL and they are greatly appreciated. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unless you provide a convincing reason why the image passes WP:NFCC#8 ("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"), it won't. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the uniform worn for that season. It will stay. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the same discussion that is going on at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:NFCW Uniform ARI.PNG. Pats1 T/C 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Uniform image is unique to its respective specific season and identifies that team in that season. And it's a much better alternative than posting all 20+ of these year-by-year images in a single article (i.e. Cleveland Browns, under a logos and uniforms section - which goes against WP:IG anyway. Pats1 T/C 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for use on the Cleveland Browns article. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do understand that there are about a dozen different Browns uniform images from different years that would all be on that one article, Cleveland Browns, right? What about the Patriots, who have maybe 20 different uniform images that you want to cram onto one article? Pats1 T/C 12:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. And I have no problem with it since there is no better way to get across what a uniform looks like then by showing said uniform. Any descriptions would be lacking and would not be of as much value as a visual of the uniforms would be themselves. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Do you want all 10+ uniform images all on Cleveland Browns together or do you want them on the individual season articles which they represent (i.e. 1992 Cleveland Browns season)? Pats1 T/C 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. And I have no problem with it since there is no better way to get across what a uniform looks like then by showing said uniform. Any descriptions would be lacking and would not be of as much value as a visual of the uniforms would be themselves. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do understand that there are about a dozen different Browns uniform images from different years that would all be on that one article, Cleveland Browns, right? What about the Patriots, who have maybe 20 different uniform images that you want to cram onto one article? Pats1 T/C 12:33, 19 October 2009 (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: Keep –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:19-2Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Erielhonan (notify | contribs).
- Non-free images of magazine cover may only be used in the article about the magazine. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to wp:NON-FREE#Images_2: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." The article indeed does discuss the magazine article and cover art, and the significance of the magazine issue as a source illustrating Eddie Klep's baseball career. The image could perhaps be moved closer on the page to the text in question, to better comply with this rule, but otherwise it meets muster for appropriateness. As a matter of fact, I had moved it to the left only to have it moved back to the right by an administrator. I believe the fair-use criteria for this image in this article are very well established, and that a careful reading of Wikipedia guidelines, along with the fair-use justification for this usage, and the copy of the article it appears in, will establish editorial concurrence. Erielhonan 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (this comment edited once)[reply]
- Note: The file was moved from File:19-2Cover.jpg to File:Elysian Fields Quarterly vol 19.2 Eddie Klep cover.jpg by TheDJ (talk · contribs) at 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is long deceased, very low resolution image (could barely tell it was a magazine), and the image itself is mentioned notably in the article. Wizardman 15:09, 20 October 2009 (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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:William Tell video.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TubularWorld (notify | contribs).
- Readers do not need to see the band performing to understand the article about the song; fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly it is not "the band performing"; this image is being used to describe the early split screen technology used in the music video. TubularWorld (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For it to be used in that context there would need to be critical commentary on the image in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does talk about the image a little, it may not be that detailed at the moment, but it does. TubularWorld (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For it to be used in that context there would need to be critical commentary on the image in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly it is not "the band performing"; this image is being used to describe the early split screen technology used in the music video. TubularWorld (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (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 G7 by WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't want it anymore; UE tommytalk2me 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted {{G7}} ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 13 October 2009 (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.