- File:Hearts XP.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
In my opinion, the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The anonymous user who was the only other contributor to the discussion besides the nominator was clearly opposed to the deletion of the image, and provided a significant amount of argumentation, yet the image was deleted without further discussion. Furthermore, important arguments against deleting this image were not brought up in the discussion: contrary to the nominator's opinion, it satisfies WP:NFCC#3 because one item cannot "convey equivalent significant information" in this case (the screenshot of the newer version is very different - even the name of the software changed between the two versions!) and it satisfies WP:NFCC#8 because several things mentioned in the text of the article are specific to earlier versions, including this particular one, than that depicted by the screenshot currently in the article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. First, the discussion was closed with consensus that the image fails WP:NFCC and should therefore be deleted. You claim that the consensus was interpreted incorrectly, but the delete argument had merit as it was policy backed. The information the IP editor gave is patiently wrong and badly worded. Their reasons for keeping the image is that the two criteria "do not go into effect" which is wrong. Their argument that showing both is a "good example for the improvement of software" and "wikipedia is supporting their produchts" has nothing to do with WP:NFCC#3. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the most overused cliche in deletion discussions and has no meaning nor any bearing on WP:NFCC. The image fails both WP:NFCC#3 and #8 because it is not critically discussed. An average reader does not need to see two slightly different screenshots to understand that there are differences. WP:NFCC#8 refers to the need for image to understand the text. It does not work the other way around. There is nothing in the text that is not understood without the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, your only actual argument - your opinion that the screenshots are only slightly different - completely ignores what I wrote above. The screenshots are far more than just "slightly" different. There are important differences between the XP and 7 versions - and quite a few of these are mentioned in the text - that should be portrayed by including a screenshot of each version. Overall, your statements above are practically copied and pasted from what you previously wrote on this topic, so I'm actually not even sure whether you read what I wrote above at all. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I read every bit of what you wrote and responded accordingly. Your claim about the interpretation of consensus is patently false. Your claims about the IP's argumentation are baseless as they do not hold up. I explained why they don't hold up. I also gave my opinion, like you did, about the interpretation of the points of WP:NFCC. And your claim that I've copied and pasted on my response is also false. Each situation is unique, and in this case it obviously fails WP:NFCC. Sorry for it, but it is true. TLSuda (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have permission to use this content. [1], {{non-free Microsoft screenshot}}. Could you explain to me again how it improves the encyclopaedia to delete it?—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a limited license to use it, e.g. things like you aren't allowed to modify it (except simple cropping). As the template you link makes it clear, this is still non-free media and still needs to conform to the non-free content criteria. I won't repeat all the arguments which have been presented to you over the years about why non-free content is used minimally because of the overall goals of the project to be as far as possible a "free" content project. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, we've had this conversation before. It's probably not necessary for me to re-state my views about this practice of deleting material that we've got permission to use just because it's ideologically impure.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, I don't see how you can have a 'consensus' in a discussion where only two people participate and they both disagree. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Relist I can't see the images to see if there is an issue or not and can't necessarily get much from the discussion here or there, my inclination given both discussions is that it's unlikely to meet the NFCC. However whilst I might disagree with User:S Marshall regarding how much we should stick to our project goals, what I can agree is that whilst we have a valid permission having the material restored for an extended discussion is of little real consequence (Longer term restoration if it's invalid is a different issue). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My project goal is to help write an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- and mine is to help write a free content encyclopaedia, where as far as possible people can reuse the content in whatever way they choose. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse FFD is somewhat different from other types of deletion discussions in that discussions often don't get much participation, and files are frequently deleted with no input from anyone except the nominator. Here the argument for deletion is perfectly sound: the difference between the images is tiny, the small number of differences can easily be described in text and including both images adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. The IP's comments were largely irrelevant and it was entirely reasonable for the closer to discount them. The copyright status of the image plainly falls under our non-free content policies and attempts to change that belong elsewhere. Hut 8.5 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist . Accepting the above statement that attendance at FFD is variable and often low, that is alll the more reason why we should be ready to entertain appeals from it. If the arguments for deletion are sound, the relist will give the same result, and there will be a satisfactory consensus. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Much as I think I closed this correctly - having to draw conclusions from limited participation is the norm for FFD - DGG has it right. If people want it should be relisted - Peripitus (Talk) 09:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
