Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] October 20
[edit] Image:JaimeLusinchi6.jpg
- No evidence for the claim that this is a work of the US government. On the contrary, the web page given as source marks this image as "Credito: Agencias", presumably meaning that some image agency holds the copyright High on a tree 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mikagamitokiya.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Mikagamitokiya.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Mikagamitokiya.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fuuko.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Fuuko.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Fuuko.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Reccahanabishi.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Reccahanabishi.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Reccahanabishi.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yanagisakoshita.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Yanagisakoshita.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Yanagisakoshita.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Forkurei.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Forkurei.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Forkurei.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Domon.jpg
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Image:Domon.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Domon.png SilentAria talk 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RonaldoandEPLtrophy.jpg
- - uploaded by User:Lpy4606 (notify | contribs).
- No source information, almost certainly copyrighted material. The image is redundant to the 2 free images in Cristiano Ronaldo's article. Dave101→talk 08:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dell jukebox original 300.jpg
- Non-free image replaceable with free use one. Ejfetters 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dell dj pocket keys 300.jpg
- Non-free image replaceable with free use one. Ejfetters 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dj front 20.jpg
- - uploaded by Pearljam123 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image replaceable with free use one. Ejfetters 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dell dj ditty.jpg
- Non-free image replaceable with free use one. Ejfetters 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PrueHalliwell.jpg
- - uploaded by Artemisboy (notify | contribs).
- Publicity image of fictional character, not known if released for promotional use as stated. Also no source. Better replaced with screencap of character as DVDs are available, and screencap is a portion of an entire work (episode) - the image here is the complete work. Ejfetters 14:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Phoebe04.jpg
- Publicity image of unknown origin better replaced with screencap for reasons stated in above nomination. Ejfetters 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TedKing.jpg
- - uploaded by Artemisboy (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable fair-use publicity image of actor - being used to identify fictional character which actor plays, better replaced with screencap as stated above. Ejfetters 14:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:7x16-cole.jpg
- - uploaded by DarkFireTaker (notify | contribs).
- screencap from television show, but has fansite URL displayed in the image at the top. Needs to be replaced with screencap without this URL included. Ejfetters 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cuoconut.jpg
- - uploaded by SWT NYC BAB3 (notify | contribs).
- Publicity image for fictional character again, better replaced with screencap as per reasons stated in above nominations Ejfetters 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:JACKSON_KENTEBE.jpg
- - uploaded by Jasonfred1980 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Bluemoonseniors.JPG
[edit] Image:JBlueMoon.jpg
[edit] Image:JC_Jacobsen_Sunglasses_Statue.jpg
[edit] Image:JConvergence_Glass.jpg
- - uploaded by Jameshacksu (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:JENNIFER.jpg
[edit] Image:JJandGeorge.jpg
- - uploaded by Officedude (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:JMJ.jpg
- - uploaded by Jjproduction (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:JVGSCSOCIETY.jpg
- - uploaded by Jvgscsociety (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Jack_DEAN_WALMART.jpg
- - uploaded by Halplunkett (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Jack_Nicholson_as_The_Joker.png
[edit] Image:Jack_wiki.JPG
- - uploaded by Jackcarrivick (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Jahir_nogales_in_2007.jpg
- - uploaded by James_murphy2 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jake_Sandvig.jpeg
[edit] Image:JakeMarsh.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Zune2generation.jpg
- Replaceable non-free use image, needs to be replaced with free use image. Ejfetters 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- This image is not replaceable as it is essentially impossible for an image of the Zune line to exist outside of Microsoft copyright, since it has no been released yet and is not widely available. Charles 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Waiting a month for the product to be released won't damage the article's quality, despite what User:Eightball may think. There is no notable differences between a free image of an old model like Image:Zune-color-negro.jpg and the promotional image. We are not part of Microsoft's PR. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - the article is about the Zune, someone can just take a picture of a Zune and upload it there and it would be free use. Ejfetters 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, they can't do that, because it's not out yet. I don't see how people don't understand this. And since when did showing the correct amount of information make us part of Microsoft's PR? This is just a ridiculous debate. You guys are focusing far too much on the "free" part of "free encyclopedia," rather than "encyclopedia." People don't come to Wikipedia because it's free (free as in freedom). They come because of its vast amount of information. I'm really getting sick and tired of editors removing useful information because it's not "FREE", even though we can 100% use it. Also, when the new iPods were released, their articles used Apple's promotional images until free images were available (images of the NEW PRODUCTS). That just makes sense. Also, no one used an image of the 5G iPod on the 6G iPod article just because it was free, when there were plenty of non-free 6G images available. QED. Charles 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Zune is available now, and been available for a while. The lead image can be that of a free use image of a Zune, it does not have to be of the new Zune that is scheduled for release, as it isn't solely about that. I have also checked the ipod site, I didnt see any images there that weren't free use, but I will check it again. WP:FU states that if a non-free image can be replaced with a free use then we can't use the non-free image, no matter how difficult it may be to obtain a free use image, it is possible. Ejfetters 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- But it's not possible. I don't care how hard you try, you won't be able to go buy a 2nd gen Zune and take a picture of it. Also, there are no more non-free images on the iPod page because they were replaced once free ones were available. It defies all logic to use an older picture when a newer one is available, especially a newer one that more accurately depicts the article. I said this before on another page: the new Zunes come out in three weeks. We can EASILY keep the non-free image, and in three weeks there will be a deluge of free images of the new Zunes, and they can simply be replaced. Until then, we should use the best image we have, which happens to be non-free. Charles 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Zune is available now, and been available for a while. The lead image can be that of a free use image of a Zune, it does not have to be of the new Zune that is scheduled for release, as it isn't solely about that. I have also checked the ipod site, I didnt see any images there that weren't free use, but I will check it again. WP:FU states that if a non-free image can be replaced with a free use then we can't use the non-free image, no matter how difficult it may be to obtain a free use image, it is possible. Ejfetters 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, they can't do that, because it's not out yet. I don't see how people don't understand this. And since when did showing the correct amount of information make us part of Microsoft's PR? This is just a ridiculous debate. You guys are focusing far too much on the "free" part of "free encyclopedia," rather than "encyclopedia." People don't come to Wikipedia because it's free (free as in freedom). They come because of its vast amount of information. I'm really getting sick and tired of editors removing useful information because it's not "FREE", even though we can 100% use it. Also, when the new iPods were released, their articles used Apple's promotional images until free images were available (images of the NEW PRODUCTS). That just makes sense. Also, no one used an image of the 5G iPod on the 6G iPod article just because it was free, when there were plenty of non-free 6G images available. QED. Charles 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have proven nothing. There is no visible difference between the illustrated product and the current one, despite what you said in my talk page. There is simply no justification for having the image there with similar free alternatives available per our WP:NFCC policy. -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep saying this bullshit. It's three different products! Your image is illustrating only 1/3 of what the article covers. Your argument is simply that YOU don't understand the difference between the models. That's not my problem, and that's not a problem that should be passed onto the readers. Charles 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please watch your language. I am a user that understands there are different versions of the Zune, that I get. It is no different from a new version of a car that is coming out, considerably different from the old model year. This was the case for countless cars. The new version had non-free images available only, as there were none on dealer lots or in the public. However, users couldn't use the images because they were non-free. Example, when the new 2008 Ford Taurus was announced, there were non-free images found online, but no free images. As the Taurus was around for 20 years (far longer than the Zune) it couldn't be justified that the new Taurus image was going to replace the old free image simply because it was newer and better represented it. Countless non-free images better represent a subject over the free image, but we can't use them. In the case here the old Taurus image was left, and when a new free image of the new Taurus could be found, it was uploaded. This was done for countless cars, not just the Taurus. Also, this site is not advertisement for the Zune - so placing the image so people can see what a new one is going to look like in case they want it can't justify. Ejfetters 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- First off, I never said whatever your last argument is directed at, but whatever. Secondly, this is a situation in which Wikipedia SHOULD excel, but is instead being neutered by people like you two. Other encyclopedias do not have the ability to cover a new product or development or etc. as well as Wikipedia can. When we have the ability to legally show an image of a product line that better represents the old image, we should use it, regardless of your philosophical leanings on copyright. Face it, while it's called "the free encyclopedia," people don't see that as "freedom." It's "without cost." I, personally, don't care one bit how free an image is. If we CAN use it, we SHOULD use it, because we are here as a source of information, not a source of freedom. Try going over Wikipedia and removing everything that is not 100% free. It would be a shadow of itself. I defend situations like this because, in the bigger picture, it insane to try to remove so much information based on "policy" that, in my eyes, is actively restricting the growth of Wikipedia as an encylopedia. Charles 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have stated my argument, user above has stated basically he doesn't care about Wikipedia Image policies and has personally attacked myself and another user. I close my argument here on this subject and await admin decision on the nomination. I have no other comments on this image. Thank you Ejfetters 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- My concern with this image is that it quite simply looks far too promotional. I just went to the Zune article to read about it and immediately the image struck me as looking way, way out of place. The background, the photogenic reflections, and the layout, are all too idealistic. It's not Wikipedia's job to redistribute Microsoft's promotional materials, as said above. It won't harm the article to wait for an original non-promotional photograph of the second generation Zune to arrive, but I do think it greatly harms the article's integrity to use THAT image. Even in the image's description it says it's to show the Zune "in a positive way" - which again we shouldn't be doing - we should be showing things as they are, positive or not, and not in the way that Microsoft would like. For example, consider the difference between the image we have on the Whopper article and the one on this web page. Clearly we'd have to use the original photo, not the one sourced from Burger King. I'd recommend deletion of Microsoft's image here and restoring whatever was on the Zune article before. --Anakin (contribs, complaints) 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:IMG01.jpg
- - uploaded by Stormriderx (notify | contribs).
- Useless since there is already a Land of the Free II Cover, and it has an uninformative name. Narian 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MAJESTIC.jpg
- - uploaded by Unchained9 (notify | contribs).
- Majestic Old - Low Quality compared to Majestic New. Narian 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Usforeignpolicy.png
- Completely subjective map. Original research and unused image in any case. Pascal.Tesson 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:6519630.jpg
- - uploaded by Reubenbarton (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and higher res picture exists on Commons (though it is a bit darker). See Image:Saturn SA9 launch.jpg. Pascal.Tesson 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kimmeridge_bay_from_above.jpg
- obsoleted by Image:Chapman's_Pool.jpg
Alex Sheppard 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:House_and_Wilson.jpg
- - uploaded by SousaFan88 (notify | contribs).
- Media rationaled to "illustrate relationship between Gregory House and James Wilson". Image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [not would] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding," failing WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just because the image does not radiate a thousand-word essay on the relationship and conflicts between House and Wilson does not mean it's not an effective capture of one of their many comical interactions. Honestly, you remind me of a bounty hunter that takes down people for sneezing in public. Get over this. SousaFan88 02:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is using this copyrighted material which "effective capture[s] of one of their many comical interactions" necessary or significantly helpful to understanding this relationship between these characters? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The relationship between the two does play a significant role in the show. The article Gregory House does seem to have more pictures beyond the necessary amount, but this screenshot does have its own significance. Perhaps a more detailed caption/ratioanle can help. mirageinred 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar, but I have no reason to doubt the importance of that relationship within the context of the show; however, that image doesn't significantly help you understand it. I see two men whom I can now identify as Gregory House and James Wilson, Dr. House is wearing a tuxedo holding a cigar and Dr. Wilson appears blurry and indifferent. The image depicts the two men who are in this friendly relationship, but that depiction is not necessary to understand that relationship. Ergo, the image does not meet the muster of WP:NFCC#8.
In anticipation of what has come before: I have no quarrel with or dislike of House, it's characters, the Fox Broadcasting Company, TV shows, Saranghae honey (talk · contribs), SousaFan88 (talk · contribs), or images on Wikipedia in general. Just to get that out of the way. This material is copyrighted, and I don't feel it meets the mark for including such media in the capacity it's being used. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar, but I have no reason to doubt the importance of that relationship within the context of the show; however, that image doesn't significantly help you understand it. I see two men whom I can now identify as Gregory House and James Wilson, Dr. House is wearing a tuxedo holding a cigar and Dr. Wilson appears blurry and indifferent. The image depicts the two men who are in this friendly relationship, but that depiction is not necessary to understand that relationship. Ergo, the image does not meet the muster of WP:NFCC#8.
- The relationship between the two does play a significant role in the show. The article Gregory House does seem to have more pictures beyond the necessary amount, but this screenshot does have its own significance. Perhaps a more detailed caption/ratioanle can help. mirageinred 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is using this copyrighted material which "effective capture[s] of one of their many comical interactions" necessary or significantly helpful to understanding this relationship between these characters? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
