Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 13[edit]

Ruđer Bošković (3rd from the left, upper row) was not Serbian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ante Perkovic (talk • contribs) .

Uploader not notified. Relisting this. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dalponis (notify). Requested by uploader in description for deletion, as it was made obsolete by Image:UniqueHardwareScreenShot.png. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Nelson (notify). Uploader requested mfd with reason "Uploaded with wrong filename." Image:Bummer and Lazarus Plaque.jpg has replaced it. TimBentley (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by AreJay (notify). Uploader requested mfd with reason "Please delete this image. This was uploaded by me today (3/30) after obtaining necessary permission from the owner. However, I am unfortunately unable to accomodate this great photo into the Genesis article as it stands now. Thanks." Unused. TimBentley (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 830Shadow (notify). Duplicate of Image:Shrinkpic.jpg.- --Jtalledo (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 830Shadow (notify). Duplicate of Image:400.jpg- --Jtalledo (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 830Shadow (notify). Duplicate of Image:400.jpg- --Jtalledo (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 830Shadow (notify). Duplicate of Image:Shrinkpic.jpg.- --Jtalledo (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 830Shadow (notify). Duplicate of Image:Tickletummy.jpg.- --Jtalledo (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by RadicalBender (notify). OB by Image:National Collegiate Athletic Association logo.png -- Punctured Bicycle 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of last count, there were 83,944, the vast majority of which are tagged as promophoto "because I found it on a promotional-looking website somewhere, it must be promotional!". This category is one of the dumping grounds for non-free images that people have uploaded without understanding copyright or Wikipedia's image use policies. --Carnildo 07:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many or most of these images should be deleted. However, some of them are acceptable. So I think they should be listed on a more or less case by case basis. Thue | talk 07:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering? I can go through maybe 50 at a time before my eyes start crossing -- I figure I could finish with the category in about five years. --Carnildo 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not voluntering. But I might help if the effort was organized, like the effort for tagging untagged images. The fact that I am not voluntering to do all the work does not mean that I support mass deletion. Thue | talk 09:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you please not to delete the image of Peter maffay (Image:Peter_maffay.jpg) since this is uploaded by myself and is a genuine promophoto member. It is given to fans of Peter who write to his fan club in Germany. It is also used on his entry in the english Wikipedia, Peter Maffay. Thank you for your consideration, please message to my talk page if you have concerns. Thor Malmjursson 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack (Talk)[reply]
Redirect the cat to Category:Images with unknown copyright status. Most images here are not work-for-hire nor from a press kit. Any legitimately fair use images can use {{Non-free fair use in}}. Jkelly 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserted Comment: With thanks for pointing me at the {{fairusein}} category, I have moved the image I wrote about from promophoto to this category. I am not sure whether my fair use rationale is any good, since I have never had to write one - I assume its the reasons why you think you can use the image. Can someone take a look at the photo and check it please? Its [[Image:Peter_maffay.jpg]]. Thanks to all. Thor Malmjursson 07:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack (Talk)[reply]
Keep obviously, but I am 100% in agreement that there are a heckuva lot of images there that don't belong. People are tagging anything from the website of the subject as a promotional image. Maybe the solution is to change the name of the template to {{mediaguide}} so that it clarifies proper use. BigDT 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. You're not willing to go through every single image to evaluate them, but you want me (or someone else) to go through every single image and delete them? That doesn't seem fair. howcheng {chat} 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by T`sitra Yel Darb (notify). Orphaned, and hard to imagine a use for it. Uploader has not been notified, as the uploader is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of a banned user, so notification would be pointless. User:Angr 09:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All uploaded by Brion VIBBER; OR, OB by the Map of California highlighting X.svg series (e.g. Image: Map of California highlighting Alpine County.svg, Image: Map of California highlighting Butte County.svg, etc.) --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Roger ambrose (notify). OR, UE, possibly AB. Was being used in a since-deleted vanity page about the uploader. User:Angr 09:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Coz 11 (notify). OB by Image:University of Washington primary logo.png Punctured Bicycle 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This logo is from the media release package sent out by the University of Washington for use by the media and is intended for uses such as this. In addition it complies with the letter, and spirit, of the copyright tag applied to the image. I see no reason this should have even been marked for deletion. --Coz 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the reasons: 1. The image has been obsoleted by a better quality image, Image:University of Washington primary logo.png 2. The image does not use a descriptive enough filename ("UW" can stand for University of Wisconsin for all we know) 3. PNG images are preferred over GIF images 4. The image suffers from the halo effect -- remnants of anti-aliasing are visible when viewing the image on a dark background 5. The image seems to have been transcoded from a JPEG, given all the artifacts 6. The image incorrectly omits the trademark (R) symbol. Punctured Bicycle 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I got it now. I had looked at the page, not the images, and couldn't figure out what the problem was. I didn't notice that the PNG versions had been uploaded. By all means, nuke the suckers.  ;-) --Coz 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Coz 11 (notify). OB by Image:University of Washington secondary logo.png. Also uses incorrect color combination. Punctured Bicycle 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This logo is from the media release package sent out by the University of Washington for use by the media. It is the proper color combination and is intended for uses such as this. In addition it complies with the letter, and spirit, of the copyright tag applied to the image. I see no reason this should have even been marked for deletion. --Coz 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are the reasons: 1. The image has been obsoleted by a better quality image, Image:University of Washington secondary logo.png 2. The image does not use a descriptive enough filename ("UW" can stand for University of Wisconsin for all we know) 3. PNG images are preferred over GIF images 4. The image seems to have been transcoded from a JPEG, given all the artifacts 5. The image incorrectly omits the trademark (R) symbol 6. From my interpretation of their official style manual, the gold, purple-filled face is intended to be used against a purple background. Punctured Bicycle 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - is something wrong with the "file links" list for that image? There are eleventy billion of them on there and none of them seem related. BigDT 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh ... I see what it is ... someone was using it in their signature? Good grief ... BigDT 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Bod 2.gif (talk | delete)
Uploaded by Steelfixer (notify). OR, UE, AB. This image was the uploader's only contribution to Wikipedia, more than a year and a half ago. User:Angr 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag says that stamp images should "illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". That is not being followed. -- Punctured Bicycle 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between using the stamps as a way to display a cow or a barn and using the stamps as a way to display Wisconsin's cows or Wisconsin's barns? In both cases the stamp is being used to illustrate the things appearing on the stamp's design, as opposed to the stamp itself. I don't follow why you think it's OK. Punctured Bicycle 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, took me a minute, but I think I follow your comment now. The wikipedia use of the image to show the design and layout of the stamp itself. The design and layout is what is copyrighted by the USPS. There is no copyright on the generic objects depicted on the stamp, i.e. the cows and barns from my earlier example. If, however, the image depicted a copyrighted object which could not be used under fair use, et. al., then I would agree the image couldn't be used. It is kind of a bottle in a bottle type rationale, but we have cows in our bottle, not the Mona Lisa.  :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be getting sidetracked into a discussion about original vs. derivative works. Ignore the part that says "as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design". That leaves: "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." In other words, the image should only be used to illustrate an article about the actual stamp itself, e.g. 2002 USPS Stamp of Wisconsin. That is clearly not the way these images are being used currently. Furthermore, these copyrighted images don't add significantly to the articles they are used in, which is required by Wikipedia fair use policy. They are purely decorative and contain little informational value. Further still, free alternatives can easily be created or found to replace the stamps entirely, e.g. photographs of apple orchards or the Space Needle for Washington. Punctured Bicycle 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jtdirl (notify). CV. Was uploaded to Wikipedia "by permission" (what type of permission left unspecified), but before 2005-05-19, so not speediable. User:Angr 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but remove from everywhere but Patrick Hillery. I have retagged it as permission+fair use. BigDT 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. BigDT's solution sounds fair. It is a standard official portrait issued to the media by the President's office of the sixth President of Ireland. A user approached the Áras asking permission for official portraits to be used on Wikipedia. The current president's staff told him that given the nature of what Wikipedia was (a not-for-profit encyclopaedia — not that it doesn't fundraise, but that it is a credible sourcebook and not some dodgy website looking to make money), Wikipedia could use any of the official portraits on its site. He had used a few in articles. I simply added in the rest when I authenticated the permission. DT's solution seems reasonable. The image dates from a time when Wikipedia's rules on downloading images were less clearly defined and the categorisation rules were different. JJ (I think it was) downloaded a lot of things in good faith but much of his stuff lacked the sort of clear categorisation that is required today. He and similar users could hardly be blamed for following the letter of WP's rules at the time when those rules were confusing and to put it bluntly, misleading. A lot of Irish stuff was downloaded by him. So please alert Irish users or the Irish users' noticeboard before deleting it. We may well be able to chase up the missing information without loss of useful, and if recategorised, for the most part legitimate images. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Elephant penis.jpg | delete) Doesn't show an elephant's penis, but rather an elephant. QuizQuick 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the image is at Commons, not Wikipedia, so there's nothing to delete except your {{ifd}} notice. Secondly, the elephant's penis is clearly seen in the image. User:Angr 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Skoalhoax.PNG: This isn't really an image - it's a scan of the first part of a very short article. Furthermore, its copyright notice is questionable, but, most importantly, it's just not a good illustration of anything, and is really sourcetext, not a picture. Phil Sandifer 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - obviously not a free image. I have changed the tag to {{Non-free fair use in}}. The subject of the article Sokal Affair is this document. But honestly, though, there is a link to the original article at the bottom of the page, so I don't know how much of a necessity it is to have a scan of the document. I could go either way. BigDT 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Atanamir (notify). Made OBsolete by Commons:Image:Consolas sample.svg. User:Angr 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_July_13&oldid=1046528736"