Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26[edit]

File:Gallery FGN Battleship galelry.jpg[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The game board is not copyrighted, so a free image could be made to illustrate how the round is played. Additionally, the game board in this image is already rotated upside down, making it a poor choice to improve the reader's understanding of how the game works, as is required under WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:22, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Laura Branigan, 1993 Promo (Single And Album).gif[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need for another non-free image of the singer just for use in her discography. Discographies on Wikipedia do not allow any non-free media files, and even if they did, could we use the picture that is already being used in the main article? This image page only has a rationale of fair use for the main Laura Branigan article, even though the uploader is only going to be dumb enough to upload another copyrighted image for a music video. I'm guessing that the rationale on this page is for the discography, but I doubt it'll be a valid one 'cause, as I've made it clear before, wiki discogs do not allow non-free pictures. Unless a free alternative of this woman happens to be found or uploaded on Commons, an image of her in the artist discography infobox should not be included. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 02:12, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Jack LaLanne on TV.jpg[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image, not useful to fully understand the article Jack LaLanne – Quadell ^(talk) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo helps readers understand visually the section discussing his 34-year-long, highly popular, TV show. --Light show (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (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.

File:7th ID SSI.svg[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: Keep. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] insignia border is army green, not black. Like on File:7th_Infantry_Division_CSIB.jpg or File:7th Infantry division Shoulder Sleve insignia.png. Alex Spade (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the file should be rapidly deleted. Instead I can make the necessary changes. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When do you think you will do this? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change has been made. I also made some minor corrections to line points as well, so this is a far better version of the original patch. Thank you, Alex for pointing out the error. I hope this fits the bill... Also, thanks to Quadell for giving me the time to fix it... My apologies that it took a little while to get this done... Been busy with work. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it's fixed. Thank, Steven, for the improvements! – Quadell ^(talk) 11:48, 8 August 2013 (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.

File:Photo1 CMP Toronto.JPG[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This map was created by Esri Canada, a private company. I don't believe the uploader is the copyright holder, and I see no evidence that Esri maps are in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:RONA map.jpg[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. This map was created by Esri Canada, a private company. I don't believe the uploader is the copyright holder, and I see no evidence that Esri maps are in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo1 lge.jpg[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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad name, and the description "Photo Courtesy of the Society" indicates that the uploader is not the copyright holder – Quadell ^(talk) 19:09, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo1-1-.jpg[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad name, no description, dubious copyright situation – Quadell ^(talk) 19:12, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo1111.jpg[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name, orphaned user image, not useful – Quadell ^(talk) 19:13, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo18h.jpg[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad name, vague description, not likely to ever be useful – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Microsoft Word 2003.png[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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image lacks contextual significance as required by WP:NFCC#8 since Word 2003 is not discussed in a manner that needs an image. In fact, Microsoft Word article is already riddled with images. This one is too much. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Word 2010.png[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: Withdrawn by the nominator before any party replies. Nominator holds no prejudice against future nominations. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 as this image is used decoratively in a more obscure area of the article. Microsoft Word article is already riddled with non-free images most of which are not required. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Ms-word-5.5-dos.png[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. Without discussion of the visual significance of the image in the article's text, an image like this doesn't meet NFCC. It's not acceptable just as a decoration or as an example of what some software used to look like (especially if the article does not contain discussion, explicitly referencing the image, of the software's appearance). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 as this image is used decoratively in a more obscure area of the article. Microsoft Word article is already riddled with non-free images most of which are not required. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, get rid of the MSWordDOS5.0 image, since this one's displayed file is part of MSWord, whereas the text of the other one is of unknown provenance. This one can be used to illustrate the pre-WYSIWYG Word -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. That file is also up for deletion. None of them satisfy NFCC completely. Both have NFCC#8 problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does it not significantly increase understanding? Many people have no idea what wordprocessors looked like before WYSIWYG, unless you're old enough to remember DOS before WYSIWYG (or used an Apple II, C-64, CP/M) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Many people have no idea, so much so that when they look at this image, they as themselves "what the am I looking at?" The article does not discuss this image. Therefore, it does not significantly increase the understanding of the reader. Result: NFCC#8 fails. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's why we have captions. It illustrates what the DOS pre-WYSIWYG wordprocessor looks like, so should be moved to the DOS section, so greatly increases the knowledge of the reader in what it does indeed look like (it does not look like a WYSIWYG wordprocessor) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with your solution is that it exposes the image to other NFCC failures because you do not seem to take NFCC as a whole into consideration. NFCC is written to ensure the non-free images are used only when they are absolutely needed, e.g. when they reinforce what the article text says in a manner that words alone or another image (especially a free one) cannot convey. In this case, I don't see the DOS paragraph of the article needing any picture and this image displays other copyright-protected contents that are not vital to its purpose. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The DOS version image is up for deletion due to the presence of probably non-free content (the document depicted) in the image beyond what is necessary, in violation of WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. This one too. The text it displays is not free, although I forgot to include in my original nomination. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, the text of this one is part of the MSWord application package, so it is still a screenshot of just MSWord (these being instructions on how to use MSWord) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And what makes you think it is good excuse? NFCC does not say anything about sanctioning copyright-protected contents when they are part of a whole. In fact, it says "an entire work is not used if a portion will suffice". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2013 (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.

File:Microsoft Word 2.0c.jpg[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. Without discussion of the visual significance of the image in the article's text, an image like this doesn't meet NFCC. It's not acceptable just as a decoration or as an example of what some software used to look like (especially if the article does not contain discussion, explicitly referencing the image, of the software's appearance). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 as this image is used decoratively in a more obscure area of the article. Microsoft Word article is already riddled with non-free images most of which are not required. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it violates WP:NFCC#8. In the versions section of the Word article, this image (and others) go a long way to demonstrate how Word has evolved. Therefore, it is definitely contextually significant and helps readers understand changes to Word (and even the feel of Microsoft's popular office suite in general). You could perhaps replace the image with a few paragraphs of text in the Word 2.0 row of the table in that section describing how the program looked and how it differed from the previous version, but I'd argue that having images would be a far cleaner way of getting the information across. If the concern here is that multiple images are used in the article, and traffic overhead due to many requests to images, maybe it'd be better to combine all of those images into one large one? I don't think dropping images of old versions is a good idea. 67.208.183.124 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when these images were tagged, the Microsoft Word article at that time used 10 nonfree screenshots and 2 logos. That's a gross violation of NFCC#3. Currently there are 8 in use, but I don't see any more than 4 being necessary to fully understand the topic. I would understand keeping File:Microsoft Word on Windows 8.png (the latest version of Word for Windows), File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png (the latest Word for Mac), and perhaps one or two others to show the evolution of the product, so long as the product's evolution is discussed in the article. Using this image in addition is a NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to combine those screenshots into a single larger image? That way, no information would be lost, but only one image would be used to convey the information. 72.83.137.181 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The NFCC objections would still stand. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur; merging several images into one would not reduce the copyright issues. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think sreenshot should stay. It is over a decade old and not only does it help with the illustration on evolution of MS Word, but Microsoft in general, and how it evolved its software. Furthermore, it specifically helps in illustrating the way MS Word was displayed not only on Windows 3x, but how it has evolved to what we see on current operating systems, specifically Microsoft's very own Windows. This is not a duplicate picture of the thousands floating on the Internet, but one made for this purpose. I am confident that beyond the hardcore enthusiasts very few people own the software to be able to reproduce this picture today. It is one which should be preserved. I8189720 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (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.

File:Word 2000 Blank Document.png[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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 as this image is used decoratively in a more obscure area of the article. Microsoft Word article is already riddled with non-free images most of which are not required. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo24.jpg[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user page image, not useful – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo24a.JPG[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user page image, not useful – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Photo51.jpg[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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad name, very dark, unlikely to ever be used – Quadell ^(talk) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (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.

File:Stand1.gif[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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this has a nominal OTRS ticket, it's an unused, lo quality image currently lacking a description. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does the OTRS ticket contain information on what this is, or to be used for? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2013 (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.

File:Deacon John Graves House.gif[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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too small to be of any use. Higher resolution version available on the commons as commons:File:Deacon John Graves HABS.jpg. ALH (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (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.