Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 28 July 30 >

Contents

[edit] July 29

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.

[edit] Image:Serbia02.png

Image:Serbia02.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PANONIAN (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic image. (Map is misleading !! Serbian principality and Austrian province Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat are shown with blue color. First is vasal state of Ottoman Empire and second is nothing else but province of Austria) —Rjecina 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

This is ridiculos. Here are proofs that map is very correct:

If you object only to colour, you have no right to claim that entire map is wrong and to ask for its deletion. Also, article named Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat already have a map that show only voivodship without principality of Serbia, so your colour suggestion is already fulfiled. This specific map was created with purpose to show two territories that had name Serbia and that is reason why they are in same colour. Historically, there was no difference between these two territories - both had name Serbia and both were autonomous regions within Ottoman and Habsburg empires. PANONIAN 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have confirmed my point. Map on http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/185915BK.GIF is having right colors. Yours are wrong and misleading ! —Rjecina 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
I did not confirmed your point. Map on that link was made for purpose to show entire Balkans and that is why it use different colours for territories ruled by two different empires. But the map that we discuss here was made only for certain articles related to Serbian history and that is why it show in same colour two territories important for Serbian history. PANONIAN 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This image is also on Wikimedia Commons. Like the other map directly below this one. vlad§inger tlk 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • About deleting of this map discussion will be on commons in next month or 2. My mistake has been nomination for deleting of this 2 maps on wikipedia. —Rjecina 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Serbia1918.png

Image:Serbia1918.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PANONIAN (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic image. (Serbia borders which has never been international accepted) —Rjecina 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia have many other articles and maps about territories and countries whose borders were not "internationally accepted". Some examples: Independent State of Croatia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Western Bosnia, etc, etc. If we did not deleted such articles and maps because these borders were not "internationally accepted" then we have no reason to delete this one as well. PANONIAN 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - "claimed borders of real country" is a pretty encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, image is on Commons. -Nard 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's rather amusing actually. Maybe it's just me. vlad§inger tlk 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion about deleting is transfered on commons —Rjecina 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

Both are Commons images. Nothing to see here. Move along. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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.

[edit] Image:SNES logo.svg

Image:SNES logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anomie (notify | contribs).
  • User says image is ineligible for copyright. Image is a logo of a well-known video game system. Other logos are tagged with copyright tags, this one is not. — Ejfetters 10:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
Strong Keep Under US copyright law, typography is not copyrightable and neither are simple geometric shapes or some small number of shapes. That logo consists of one rectangle and 4 words. Anomie 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Further, if this is decided to not be the case, tag it {{logo}} with a rationale identical to Image:Super Famicom logo.svg except that it is to identify the North American console instead of Japanese console. Anomie 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Other logos are tagged with copyright tags, this one is not. ??? What's stopping you, the nominator, from correcting the situation yourself? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep PD-ineligible, exactly as presently tagged. -Nard 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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.

[edit] Image:Altodraw.jpg

Image:Altodraw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Damicatz (notify | contribs).
  • Sorry, What's this image?! no description no information OsamaK 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Description and rationale added. Jheald 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Image:Evanna_Lynch.jpg

Image:Evanna_Lynch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AiselneDrossel (notify | contribs).
  • Originally claimed to be licensed under GFDL, the source has since been revealed to be the BBC Newsround website. In the bottom left hand corner of the page, it says "(C) BBC MMVII", which means this image is likely copyrighted. Given that it's a copyrighted image of a living person, there is no legitimate uses for the image here. — Deskana (banana) 16:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nindendo_DS.jpg

  • This image is unencyclopedic; it is also misspelled, bears the caption "Nintendo DS in FCKED" and has nothing to do with the contents of neither this nor any other article. NeoThe1 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it seems to be a joke picture. --Addict 2006 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ILANIGHAZALI.jpg

Image:ILANIGHAZALI.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blamethefish (notify | contribs).
  • Appears to be a webcam shot. Not used in any pages, don't see reason for its existence. Perhaps it is for the autobiographical article Ilani Ghazali which is this user's only other creation.
  • EDIT: I see that the article has now been deleted. Is there a CSD category for this? vlad§inger tlk 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sarkozy.JPG

Image:Sarkozy.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EastWittering (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic photoshop Kl4m 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Goldieinprogress.jpg

Image:Goldieinprogress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).
  • Unsourced non-free screnshot showing a DJ looking to an unshown graffiti, used to illustrate the information that he also works with graffiti. It doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Erlogo.gif

Image:Erlogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Erlang 1 (notify | contribs).

[edit] Image:Chinese Admiral Of The Fleet.GIF

Image:Chinese Admiral Of The Fleet.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ayzasi (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan Invalid source as well as image simply isn't found there. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Goldie_&_sonjia_ashby.jpg

Image:Goldie_&_sonjia_ashby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).
  • Unosurced non-free image showing an artist and his wife, used to illustrate the information that they were maried. It doens't seem to help in the reader's comprehension of the topic. Abu badali (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1964p.jpg

Image:1964p.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Radioheadhst (notify | contribs).
  • Unsurced imaged claimed to show some soldiers controling "angry Apanamanians". It doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Also, without source info, we can't be sure the image really shows what we believe it shows. Abu badali (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Peru_Armed_Conflict.jpg

Image:Peru_Armed_Conflict.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andersmusician (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image used as infobox-decoration doesn't help on the readers comprehension of the topic in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why. In my opinion the image clearly illustrates the main topic: a war mostly between indigenous people against terrorists, and the battle held in rural areas. Hope it clears our ideas.--Andersmusician VOTE 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is a beautiful picture, and it indeed serves as a good illustration. But it's not necessary to the article, in the sense that one doesn't need to see a picture of some armed natives to understand a discussion about the armed conflicts in Peru. --Abu badali (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
hmmm, what kind of pictures might be good, abu badali?--Andersmusician VOTE 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no commentary on this image and it is not necessary for reader understanding. Furthermore, according to the Flickr site, this is a screenshot from "State of Fear", and film screenshots should only be used in context of the film itself. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Image:Mario2.jpg

Image:Mario2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mruizj (notify | contribs).
  • This image isn't used for anything and has no actual purpose. The image was originally uploaded by User:Mruizj, under the name mario.jpg, but it was re-uploaded by User:A Link to the Past under a different filename so its old filename could be used for a more relevant image. -KULSHRAX 22:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, instead the non-free picture at mario.jpg should be deleted and the original version restored. The non-free image is high-res and fails the NFCC. Besides, this image is being used on a user page. -Nard 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted for being an orphan. This image of a professor is clearly not being used on User:Thndrby as he intends. The logs show an older file and this was the last time Thndrby edited his own page. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.