Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

September 25

File:Dark side of the moon mobile fidelity cd FUI.jpg

The rationale states that the image makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone," but I completely disagree. The image is used in a paragraph mentioning this album's re-release, but by no means is this image necessary to illustrate the fact that a re-release was made. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is a discussion that should first be held at the article's talk page, and barring no outcome, at non-free content review. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should have been brought up somewhere else, but it was brought up here, and the fact that this is not the ideal venue is not a reason to speedily close the discussion. See WP:BURO: "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep how? Could you elaborate instead of just staying "speedy keep"? As Bkell said, speedy keep isn't for moving discussions elsewhere. I honestly can't find one way that this image helps the user understand anything more about the topic. It's just a picture of a CD sitting on top of a record player. Sure, it looks nice, but it's not contributing to the article very much, and not satisfying all the NFC criteria. If it was a free image there'd be no problem, but it's not. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO is nice, but this is still the wrong venue; I'm not advocating not having the discussion, I'm advocating moving it to the proper first venue; see WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Please go discuss this at the talk page for Dark Side of the Moon, with the editors that have an understanding of why that image is being used the way it is, and close this deletion discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how about that. You didn't even notify the talk page of the article that this image is currently in use at. How sneaky. You also forgot to take note that this is a featured article, which means that the images have been thoroughly reviewed already and the fair use rationale accepted by all those that supported its promotion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such notifications are discretionary, and generally a bad idea. The contributions they bring are from people that are not sufficiently disinterested in the topic to make objective judgments.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its horrible and dishonest practise not to, and to instead silently delete the image at a venue where the people that have made use of that image won't notice it. Those contributions can be judged by an uninvolved admin. Should I check all the other deletion discussion by the editors on this discussion as well and perform the task myself, or can some editors (and admins for crying out loud) due their diligence and duty and inform the community about their agenda? I sure hope that common sense prevails and the latter is chosen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop attacking people with different points of view.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And people who sit on WP:NPA need to stop getting their backs up thinking that someone is being personal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And people that use descriptions like "sneaky", "behind people's backs", and "dishonest" need to understand that those words are personal.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, just because this is a featured article doesn't mean it's perfect. I've seen tons of featured articles with issues, plus because polices and guidelines change over time. Second, I did put a notice on the user's talk page, but I APOLOGIZE GREATLY for not placing one on the article page. This was, in no way, "behind anyone's back". If that was the case, I would have deliberately not notified anyone, but as an established editor, I know better than to do something like that. I must say, I've nominated countless number of images for deletion before, and I have never once had an issue like this before. Third, and most important, I would advise the uploader to make some useful arguments to keep this image because attacking other editors and complaining about procedure will in no way affect the outcome of this discussion. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#8. "Identification" is sometimes used in an effort to bypass WP:NFCC#8, but the only "identification" provided is the prism image, and that is already in the article.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am the sort of reader whose comprehension is greatly assisted by an appropriate image next to the text "[...] in April 1988 on their "Ultradisc" gold CD format". It also seems manifestly obvious that the talk page of the article in question is the best place to discuss possible deletion of anything in the article - pictures, text, sources. Occuli (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does no harm, it's a good picture of a limited release version of the album which may be of interest to fans who either don't know about the MoFi version of have heard of it but would like to see what it looks like. Pink Floyd fans, by and large, have an interest in these sorts of things. I'm also in total agreement in the underhand way this nomination has been instigated. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It does no harm" and "it's a good picture" are not reasons to keep an image. I'm sure Pink Floyd fans would like it, but Wikipedia is not a fan site. The release itself is not anything unusual that needs a copyrighted photo to show what it looks like. It's just a CD in a jewel case. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments just go to show that you have no idea what this image is about. It is NOT "just a CD in a jewel case". It's a 24K gold limited edition The Dark Side of the Moon CD in a non-standard no-force required jewel case. Most people have not seen a 24K gold CD much less a PF one. This picture gives illustration to the description in the prose. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The issue here is WP:NFCC#8. I don't really think the surface of the CD or the surrounding setting are important to the subject matter. Instead, the issue seems to rest on the fact that the image includes what looks like the back cover of the CD package, and that includes a version of the prism image that is considered iconic to the subject of the page. The section of the page discusses the design and materials used in making this version of the prism image, and indicates that the design and materials were significant (end of third paragraph of the section). Most of the rest of that section discusses the sonic qualities of the release, as opposed to the cover art, so the cover art may not be the most important aspect of the section. The page illustrated by the image already has two other images showing the prism. The question becomes whether the particular version of the prism used here requires this image in order to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, and this has to be balanced against the copyright owner's rights to the image. It really isn't enough to say that it does no harm (see WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED). My advice would be to crop the image, in the same spirit as a screenshot that only uses a small part of the non-free work, so that there is just an image of the prism and the area of the cover immediately around it, not the whole cover, and not everything else. I think that such an image would have a much stronger claim to passing NFCC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the two "keep" arguments are basically "I like it" and "It does no harm". As far as the "weak delete", I don't know if the reason the image is there if for the prism. That wouldn't make so much sense, especially since there's already two cover images of the infobox. Actually, I don't know what the reason is for the image being in the article. Maybe the uploader could actually enlighten us... –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually uploaded by Parrot of Doom originally. I'm not sure how it came to be under my name; possibly a transfer from commons when it was discovered. Personally I feel that everything can be explained in words, and that's why NFCC 8 discussions are pointless subjective opinion rants. The picture showcases a very unique special edition release that varies greatly from the traditional packaging that everyone has come to associate with 'Dark Side of the Moon' (that being the white prism on black). This in no way affects the original copyright holders ability to sell the item (if anything it makes a good case for promoting it!), and as it is a screenshot of a musical album, does not include enough content to satisfy any desire to possess or use the product or not, and therefore has no effect on the resale value of the item or the ability of it to be sold commercially. The picture itself looks great because Parrot of Doom was creative about his screenshot resolution: rather than show just the CD case at a small resolution, he surrounded it with thematic items and took a picture where the CD case is small enough within that picture to be of no reproducable value / no impedence to the value of the original product - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that NFCC 8 discussions are "pointless subjective opinion rants". You may think that "everything can be explained in words", but these discussions are a way of stating that the image is necessary to illustrate something that cannot be described in text. Your argument basically enforces the fact that it's fair use, but that doesn't mean it meets the NFCC. The article text states the following (in reference to the subject of the image): In 1979, The Dark Side of the Moon was released as a remastered LP by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, and in April 1988 on their "Ultradisc" gold CD format. The album was released by EMI on the then-new compact disc format in 1984, and eight years later it was re-released as a remastered CD in the box set Shine On. Now, is an image necessary to help the reader know those statements mean? I don't see how it is. There's nothing unusual about the appearance of the album that it needs to be illustrated, nor is the apperance even mentioned in the text. The image caption simply states: The Mobile Fidelity CD Ultradisc release of the album. That is not helping the reader understand anything additional about the subject. Yes, it shows the reader what the release looks like, but it doesn't affect the context of the article. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milne Model.jpg

This is a scan of a whole page of an apparently copyrighted book. It is used in Edward Arthur Milne to illustrate the idea of the Milne model. But this use is replaceable by a free image. We can illustrate Milne's idea with our own image—there is no need to copy Milne's own illustration and the accompanying text. The page itself is not under discussion in the article; it's the idea which is being discussed. The use of this non-free image fails WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GoldBall2010.jpg

WP:NFCC#8 - image not specifically discussed in article. Mosmof (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JonathanJaffe.jpg

Unused photos, apparently uploaded for use in the Jaffe Communications Inc. article, which has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaffe Communications Inc.). Unlikely that these photos would be useful in any other context. —Bkell (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SingaporeSubmarineRescueShipMVSwiftRescue.jpg

These are non-free images used in the Republic of Singapore Navy article to illustrate some of the navy's vessels. The article already has eight free images illustrating vessels of the navy and one free image showing the entrance to a naval base. There is no need to have these non-free images when we already have plenty of free images. Fail WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: File:Protector USV.jpg is also used in the Protector USV article. But there it seems to be replaceable by the free photo File:Rafael Protector.jpg, which, yes, is a model, but it illustrates the design of the vessel, which is the purpose the non-free file serves. —Bkell (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These images are permitted by the fair use doctrine of Singaporean copyright law. No justification has been put forth for deleting them. If you have a free image of the same vessel, then feel free to replace it. Deleting an appropriate and legally used image without providing a replacement could be considered vandalism. Mcarling (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the legality of using these images—I am saying they violate Wikipedia policy. The justification I have put forth is that their use violates WP:NFCC#1. I don't see any need to show these vessels specifically, so it seems to me that the eight free images of vessels in the article already provide freely licensed replacements. You are welcome to respond to that, but please respond to what I am actually saying, and please don't accuse me of vandalism here. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by minimizing the amount of non-free content, in accordance with the third of Wikipedia's five pillars, the licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikipedia non-free content policy. —Bkell (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bkell. WP:FAIRUSE is not a sufficient reason to keep the files. (Nor are WP:RIPPED and WP:GOFIRST). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a free image of either the same vessel or another vessel of the same class, then I would agree that these fail WP:NFCC#1 and would withdraw my objection to their removal. Image of vessels of a different class are not "equivalent" per WP:NFCC#1. Mcarling (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object! As an ex-serviceman, I'm very much aware of the security issues that our country's defence ministry is willing to sacrifice for the sake of PR, myself being an ex-photographer of RSAF but my works are not PD unlike my US counterpart. Let me ask, since File:Protector USV.jpg was supposed to showcase the type's debut in operational service (which is ahead of the Israelis), in this case the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) in the Arabian Gulf, I would gladly use an equivalent US Navy photo if there exist one. IMO, using of a 99cents model, which is most probably not made to comparable scale, in order to illustrate the type is ridiculous when an actual working example has been photographed and has been put up for PR purposes. Similarly, File:RSS Resolution (LS208)& Protector USV, North Arabian Gulf.jpg the below photograph of the USV in company of an Endurance class LPD in the Arabian Gulf is suppose to illustrate and highlight the type's operational debut in a combat environment (see http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/3g/resources/Articles/2007/features/may07_cs.html). Again, I would be very glad to use an equivalent US Navy photo if there exist one. But to date, there is none that I have found for both photos. So instead of blindly listing the photos for deletion, can someone please help to fix the problem? In cases like these, I think a sense of WP:Common sense should be in the mind of every Wikipedians. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:RSN Endurance class LPD 2.jpg is supposed to illustrate the RSN being the first (Ops Flying Eagle) to arrive off Meulaboh, Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, ferrying the heavy equipment for the Singapore Armed Force's combat engineer as well as Singapore Civil Defence Force's medical and rescue detachment for the search and rescue effort, being there on scene and providing a daily supply of fresh water for the rescue workers and the local population/victims. This photo is confirmed to be without any US Navy equivalent and was uploaded at the lowest possible resolution to avoid having problem with Wikipedia. In fact, most of these photos listed above are already of the lowest possible resolution. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSS Resolution (LS208)& Protector USV, North Arabian Gulf.jpg

This is a non-free image used in the Protector USV article to illustrate that type of ship. But it seems to be replaceable by the free photo File:Rafael Protector.jpg, which, yes, is a model, but it illustrates the design of the vessel, which is the purpose the non-free file serves. Fails WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object! Per my explanation and rationale stated above in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_September_25#File:SingaporeSubmarineRescueShipMVSwiftRescue.jpg. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camuy Cave Mouth.jpg

Poor quality (out of focus). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. When originally uploaded, there were no other photos available, but has since been replaced by a superior photos. Please delete photo.THD3 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Is Craze Logo.jpg

Image supposedly illustrates band article--but that article, Craze!, was a hoax. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MonaLisa 8 Trefoil knot.jpg

Unused image. Previously used at Talk:Mona Lisa in support of uploader's original ideas about infinity hidden in the Mona Lisa, or something. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitledgg.jpg

Unused webcam photos (of ghosts?). Apparently uploaded for The Ram Cam, the uploader's website, whose article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ram Cam). Original research; no encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramcam.jpg

Unused personal photo. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solpatab7.JPG

Unused, unsourced table of data in JPEG format. If this information is useful somewhere, it should be inserted as text, not as an image, and the data needs to be attributable to a reliable source. —Bkell (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monstertruck.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huck - Possum Parade.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:R0011575.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 06:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Maracaibo, Zulia. Venezuela.jpg

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. Unclear what this is depicting FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 06:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridge coming out of my head .jpg

Unused personal image. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CWRY517.JPG

Watermarked photo of a locomotive. Previously used in CF7, but I've replaced it there with the unwatermarked File:CWRY 517.JPG by the same uploader, which is an almost identical photo. Watermarks in user-created images are a violation of Wikipedia's image use policy; see WP:WATERMARK. See also WP:CREDITS. —Bkell (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSX2112AtlasGP38.JPG

Unused. Almost identical to File:CSXT 2112 Atlas GP38.jpg by the same uploader, which is being used in Atlas Model Railroad. —Bkell (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagaan ashutosh filming.JPG

Non-free image used in Lagaan. This image just shows the photographer of the film using the camera. It does not significantly add to readers' understanding of the film. This photograph is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The use of this image fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagaan Oscar nomination.JPG

Non-free image used in Ashutosh Gowariker and Lagaan. This image shows the directors of the five films nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in 2002. We do not need to show this photograph in order to convey the information that Lagaan was nominated for this Oscar; that is easily said in text, as in just about every other article about an Oscar-nominated film. The use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of that fact. The use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, would be CSD#F2. mabdul 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulFalzon.jpg

Orphaned, used in a now deleted copyvio on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]