Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 13
September 13
[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. iPhone 5 comes out Friday. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IPod 5th Generation specs.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dplcrnj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
It isn't as if no one has had a chance to photograph this. http://reviews.cnet.com/ipod-touch/ Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Although they are not available for sale yet, anyone could create a depiction of them. Write English in Cyrillic (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For now. There will be free media soon enough. Apple product marketing material should be okay IMHO because use of the imagery to discuss the product is Fair Use. We cannot use copyrighted pics taken by journalists and published/copyrighted by their sites. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Odessa Technologies Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Odessa Technologies Logo.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Copyright issue Deepali.barthwal (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gada82.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Photograph showing some former soldiers during a military ceremony, used in article about their unit. Not the object of commentary as a photographic work, does not contribute in any crucial way to the understanding of the article topic; clear NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a historic photograph according to the template used, no need of commentary as a photographic work, as it is not owned by any press agency. The image shows the commander of the unit during the Falklands war and soldiers who fought in the islands being decorated shortly after the conflict. The 1982 war was the main engagement of GADA 601, therefore the pic is significant to the context. Its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article topic, since there is no other photo showing actual soldiers of the 1982 period in the page.--Darius (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You got something wrong here: NFCC#8 is interpreted particularly strictly for commercial agency pictures, but that doesn't mean it's toothless for others. We do not need an illustration of "actual soldiers of the 1982 period", because soldiers of the 1982 period looked pretty much like soldiers of other periods, or soldiers of other units, or indeed soldiers all over the world. This image does not contribute in any concrete, significant way to understanding something that we could not just as well understand without it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there is something wrong with the template, which is not enough clear on this matter, thus it is open to interpretation. And if "soldiers look pretty much like soldiers of other periods", we can use a portrait of Pershing in an article about Schwartzkopf, on the grounds that both were soldiers and generals in the US army. The GADA pic shows actual persons (i.e.: Lubin Arias and the conscripts) at a time that is quite significant for the article topic.--Darius (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use a picture of Mr Arias in an article about Mr Arias. For the article about this unit, it is entirely immaterial what Mr Arias looked like, or indeed any other of the countless officers who served in the unit at different times, let alone those individual non-notable conscripts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Arias look is entirely immaterial by himself and individual conscripts maybe non-notable, agreed, but Mr. Arias giving war decorations to his soldiers in 1982 is absolutely relevant for the subject of this article (namely, GADA 601).--Darius (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be relevant in terms of content, but it's not in need of visual illustration to be understood. If you really needed it covered, the sentence "General Arias handed out decorations to former soldiers" would work just fine. We don't need to see what they were wearing, how they were standing or what the weather was like in order to understand what significance that event had for the unit (if it had any). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We don't need to see what they were wearing, how they were standing or what the weather was like in order to understand what significance that event had for the unit (if it had any)". This is entirely your own PoV, not necessary the reader's position, and yes, decoration ceremonies are usually quite significant for military units. Just as a portrait of Mr Arias in an article about Mr Arias or a pic of an individual conscript in an article on a notable individual conscript, an image showing the 1982 unit's personnel in an official ceremony is key to improve the understanding of the subject.--Darius (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so it is your position that we actually do need to see what the wheather was like? Have fun arguing for that position. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it cool, your position regarding NFCC#8 is respectable, I am not making a personal attack, I am only arguing that neither your position, nor mine, is necessary the view of the reader on how to understand an article. Ah, and the weather was cold but sunny that day...--Darius (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]As a side note, I want to make clear that this image is on public domain in Argentina since 2007 per PD-AR-Photo (not in USA, unfortunately).--Darius (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it cool, your position regarding NFCC#8 is respectable, I am not making a personal attack, I am only arguing that neither your position, nor mine, is necessary the view of the reader on how to understand an article. Ah, and the weather was cold but sunny that day...--Darius (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so it is your position that we actually do need to see what the wheather was like? Have fun arguing for that position. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We don't need to see what they were wearing, how they were standing or what the weather was like in order to understand what significance that event had for the unit (if it had any)". This is entirely your own PoV, not necessary the reader's position, and yes, decoration ceremonies are usually quite significant for military units. Just as a portrait of Mr Arias in an article about Mr Arias or a pic of an individual conscript in an article on a notable individual conscript, an image showing the 1982 unit's personnel in an official ceremony is key to improve the understanding of the subject.--Darius (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be relevant in terms of content, but it's not in need of visual illustration to be understood. If you really needed it covered, the sentence "General Arias handed out decorations to former soldiers" would work just fine. We don't need to see what they were wearing, how they were standing or what the weather was like in order to understand what significance that event had for the unit (if it had any). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Arias look is entirely immaterial by himself and individual conscripts maybe non-notable, agreed, but Mr. Arias giving war decorations to his soldiers in 1982 is absolutely relevant for the subject of this article (namely, GADA 601).--Darius (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use a picture of Mr Arias in an article about Mr Arias. For the article about this unit, it is entirely immaterial what Mr Arias looked like, or indeed any other of the countless officers who served in the unit at different times, let alone those individual non-notable conscripts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there is something wrong with the template, which is not enough clear on this matter, thus it is open to interpretation. And if "soldiers look pretty much like soldiers of other periods", we can use a portrait of Pershing in an article about Schwartzkopf, on the grounds that both were soldiers and generals in the US army. The GADA pic shows actual persons (i.e.: Lubin Arias and the conscripts) at a time that is quite significant for the article topic.--Darius (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You got something wrong here: NFCC#8 is interpreted particularly strictly for commercial agency pictures, but that doesn't mean it's toothless for others. We do not need an illustration of "actual soldiers of the 1982 period", because soldiers of the 1982 period looked pretty much like soldiers of other periods, or soldiers of other units, or indeed soldiers all over the world. This image does not contribute in any concrete, significant way to understanding something that we could not just as well understand without it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gada82-Roland.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Photograph of some soldiers posing with a weapon system during the Falklands War, used in article about their military unit. Not the object of commentary as a photographic work. The weapon system as such can be illustrated in other ways; the fact that it was deployed in the Falklands is not in need of illustration to be understood; hence NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 13 September 2012 (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: close. If the nomination was made on size alone, as I suspect it is, we can reduce the image without putting this through a deletion discussion process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Janakan-poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sreejithk2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Extremely high resolution for a fair use image Raziman T V (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have used {{Fair use reduce}} instead. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Thiepval Bombing 1996.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free photograph of the aftermath of a bomb attack. Does not show enough concrete, structural information to justify a claim that it contributes crucially to understanding the event. The only information it provides is that there was some debris, some fire, some damage to a roof, and there were some people carrying away somebody injured; all of which is vague and trivial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kit body baseball Carpaway.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ffbear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Obsoleted by commons:File:Kit body baseball Carpaway.png (same name); coloring is just slightly off so ineligible for WP:CSD#F8 Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:26, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chs logo10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tjp7675 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Replaced by SVG: File:Cecilia High School Athletics Logo.svg. Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination: Obsoleted by cleaner File:Cecilia High School Athletics Logo.svg; no foreseeable use for this version. ---Closeapple (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Animation disc.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Keyser Söze (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Obsolete file, redundant to the SVG version. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Smile.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Skier Dude (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Shadows Commons. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see a reason why commons:file:smile.jpg is a "smile". As for the version here, it is a salted image with a placeholder. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep prevents weird commons files from showing through on an excessively generic name -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has been repeatedly uploaded in various forms- protected as a generic image name & to prevent commons (as noted above, now not a smile) from showing through. (as uploader/protecter of this version). Skier Dude (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tabell.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EvilTroll (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Should be coded as a wikitable instead. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:New.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Feuruss (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should be text/HTML anyways. Salt excessively generic name -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be related to a non-notable conlang (probably invented by the editor who uploaded it—see their page history) and the associated images File:FEURSJ.JPG and File:FERUSS2.jpg should go as well, for the same reasons. (BTW, what is “salt” in this context? The term appears several times on this page, but I don’t see how any of the usages with which I’m familiar might apply. Please excuse my n00bishness.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (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.