Image talk:Z-6352.jpg/Z-6354.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Replaceable fair use

The image is of something that hasn't existed for 36 years. If a free use image is available, it should have been uploaded rather then posting the RFU template.--Lord Kinbote 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It doesn't look replaceable to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 07:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And is also relevant to the article. It should stay. Mdhennessey 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The fair use rationale doesn't explain what this image is adding anything to the article over and above the free content photos Image:PicCBQ375y.jpg and Image:AMTK5-132A_Geno_Dailey.jpg. The uploader should write a full fair use rationale, as described on Help:Image page, but I imagine an admin may still delete the image if that is not convincing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated below is the discussion from Image talk:Z-6352.jpg on this very subject (Lord Kinbote 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)):

[edit] Image talk:Z-6352.jpg

But there are plenty of other free images in the article. Why do you need this specific one? As of right now, it fails WP:FUC criterion 8. It's serving a decorative purpose only. howcheng {chat} 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it DOES "...identify the subject of [the] article, [and] specifically illustrate[s] relevant points or sections within the text..." — the image even has a detailed caption that demonstrates its relevance, as do each of the other images in the article.--Lord Kinbote 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In further reply, each of the images in the article (including the free ones) illustrate different aspects of the subject matter. This is in effect a history article, on a subject that changed significantly over time.--Lord Kinbote 01:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If other free images are already "identify[ing] the subject of the article", then this one is not needed. The caption only describes the picture, I don't see how it demonstrates the image relevance to the article. The section containing the picture doesn't seem to need an image to me. --Abu Badali 01:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume you have no background in writing railroad history articles? The image show specific pieces of equipment, bearing a specific paint scheme, traveling through an identified place, at an identified time, all important to the article's subject matter. Each image has been carefully chosen to show various aspects of the California Zephyr without redundancy. If you carefully read the entire article you will see that all of the images fit within this context.--Lord Kinbote 02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can justifiably be argued that the picture serves NO purpose but decoration within the article. It's on topic and relevant, and illustrates an aspect of the California Zephyr not shown in any other image. We're then left with the discussion as to whether it's a significant purpose or not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. howcheng {chat} 04:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Lord Kinbote 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really miss wha't the irrepeatable relevant thing depicted on the image. I ask this in good faith! --Abu Badali 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Abu is not the only person not to get it. I don't either. The caption lists a specific equipment set, at a specific place, on a specific date, which, naturally, is not repeatable. However, the article is not about that specific combination of those three things. To draw an analogy, if I was illustrating an article on the I-95 road, perhaps I could get a non-free image of a Ford Mustang on the George Washington Bridge in 1971: that would be very cool, and it may be impossible to get a free image that was identical. However, that would be replaceable with a picture of a Chevy Blazer in Savannah, Georgia in 2005, because it illustrates the same highway.

What we seek is an explanation of the actual features of the photograph that make it irreplaceable for its purpose in the article. Is it that it is pre-1970, or that #601 is a particularly interesting loco, or something else, or some combination of those things? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The age of the image and the railroad and equipment depicted are the important factors here. The locomotives shown in the image were built in the late 1940s and locomotives of this model have almost all been scrapped as of the 1980s (a couple notable examples exist in preservation in Mexico, but I don't know of any former Rio Grande PAs in existence anywhere). Rio Grande stopped running the California Zephyr in 1970, and ran a rebranded Rio Grande Zephyr train on their section of the CZ route only for one more year after that. Since the California Zephyr was jointly operated with distinct equipment by three railroads before Amtrak, it is logical to include images of the train being operated by each of the three railroads. I would love to see a freely licensed image of Rio Grande's California Zephyr, but I don't foresee one becoming available any time soon. Slambo (Speak) 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a very helpful explanation, Slambo. If the article is edited to reflect your comment, then I think the image is not replaceable.

There are three images in California Zephyr that document the rolling stock in the 1949–1970 era; two of them have Rio Grande traction; I can't see what the third is. I think we are only allowed one fair use image per fact that you are illustrating, so which of Z-6354.jpg, OP-4806.jpg or Z-6352.jpg should be kept? I would vote for the Grizzly siding shot: Z-6352.jpg --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OP-4806.jpg is a picture of the train as operated by Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad (note the square "Burlington Route" logo on the locomotive nose), so that should stay too. Z-6352.jpg definitely has better colors and composition and it shows Rio Grande PAs on the train on the near track, so I'd agree with that (and would probably move it up to be the lead photo too). I'm a bit surprised that we don't have a CZ picture under Western Pacific operation, especially considering the popularity of Keddie Wye among railfans. Slambo (Speak) 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)