Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 12 August 2008

August 12

Image:The_Yojiki_Baby_Swagbag.pdf

Image:The_Yojiki_Baby_Swagbag.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yojikids (notify | contribs).

• Not used, blatant advertising. Sherool (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grammy Award.jpg

Image:Grammy Award.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Music2611 (notify | contribs).

• This rationale does not explain how the use will not effect commercial gain or declare why it cannot be replaced by a freely licensed image. ViperSnake151 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Though fair use needs to be updated, that is not a reason for deletion. Simply showing the statue/trophy for purposes of identification is appropriate in this instance. — BQZip01 —  04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I've updated the fair use rationale. Music2611 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pachelbels Canon In D II.ogg

Image:Pachelbels Canon In D II.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WMC2007 (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted audio sample, exceeds fair use at 3:28 minutes.  Sandstein  05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:$R$WALogo.png

Image:$R$WALogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The_SRS (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Unknown_PYC_Burgee.jpg

Image:Unknown_PYC_Burgee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:QYC_Unknown_TYC_Burgee.jpg

Image:QYC_Unknown_TYC_Burgee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:QYC_BURGEE.jpg

Image:QYC_BURGEE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:QYC_Unknown_Three_triangles_burgee.jpg

Image:QYC_Unknown_Three_triangles_burgee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:"We_Are_Not_Yet_Conquered!".jpg

Image:"We_Are_Not_Yet_Conquered!".jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Natty4bumpo (notify | contribs).

• scan of artwork by john wood (doesn't seem to be the uploader) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• John Wood does not hold the copyright to this work; anthropologist and enthnohistorian Raymond Evans does; he commissioned the work. Ray's the author of several of the works I've used as sources, and it was he who gave me the copy of the print specifically for the purpose of scanning it onto my computer to upload to Misplaced Pages. Had Ray been adept enough with a computer and not been on dial-up, I would have told him to do it, but as brilliant as Ray is with historical and archaeological research, his computer literacy is limited nor he does he have a scanner. So you can count this as an objection to this image's deletion.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Old_Chickamauga_Town.jpg

Image:Old_Chickamauga_Town.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Natty4bumpo (notify | contribs).

• halftoning suggests this is a scan, not an original photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quatsino.jpg

Image:Quatsino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gesso7 (notify | contribs).

• somehow i doubt the uploader is the copyright holder on this satellite imagery Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:QuirkycastleLunar.jpg

Image:QuirkycastleLunar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danny_Flynn (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quiver-1.jpg

Image:Quiver-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ownersrep (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:QTQ1966.png

Image:QTQ1966.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eddie_Blake (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg

Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Padillo (notify | contribs).

• A professionally posed image of a wrestler who has been dead for six years that was officially taken sometime in the nineties which has been uploaded under GFDL by a Filipino editor living in the Phillipines with a history of uploading images with fake licenses. Suffice to say I am not exactly likely to believe these circumstances. –– Lid 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:L_f085da2816b4ba86a007d8a6ed56b0d7.jpg

Image:L_f085da2816b4ba86a007d8a6ed56b0d7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danielt812 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LDS_hymnals_1.JPG

Image:LDS_hymnals_1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Papabear165 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LDS_hymnals_2.JPG

Image:LDS_hymnals_2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Papabear165 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LED_EscapingSilence.jpg

Image:LED_EscapingSilence.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hempdiddy (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. Keep this image. Put it back. This image is encyclopedic and useful.Hempdiddy (talk)

Image:LEITCH.jpg

Image:LEITCH.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Merrittcentennials (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LHH_Catastrophe_unit.jpg

Image:LHH_Catastrophe_unit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Myscienceistight (notify | contribs).

• no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LHH_Stertzer_heart.jpg

Image:LHH_Stertzer_heart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Myscienceistight (notify | contribs).

• no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LHH_Churchill_wheelchair.jpg

Image:LHH_Churchill_wheelchair.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Myscienceistight (notify | contribs).

• no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LHS_Logo_SHADOW.gif

Image:LHS_Logo_SHADOW.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davedoty (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LIOGOS.jpg

Image:LIOGOS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MKSGRNS (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LIONEL_DEJEAN_WS2M_MODEL_AGENCY.jpg

Image:LIONEL_DEJEAN_WS2M_MODEL_AGENCY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arthurknight (notify | contribs).

• ridiculously tiny image, i really doubt this was taken by the uploader Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LJ.JPG

Image:LJ.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PGAD (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LJB_Headshot_2006.jpg

Image:LJB_Headshot_2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LJBerman (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LJM.JPG

Image:LJM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PGAD (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, probably copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LNRpic1.jpg

Image:LNRpic1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Loonertheband (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:LMMakai.jpg

Image:LMMakai.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LMMakai (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hollys.jpg

Image:Hollys.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Padillo (notify | contribs).

• Image fails NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly add to readers understanding. Compared to other images in the two articles using it, it is simply decorative and fails the fair-use requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erica D'Ormus.jpg

Image:Erica D'Ormus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by OoOKT (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, unecyclopedic Yopie 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:-p-MicronesiaYapGS.jpg

Image:-p-MicronesiaYapGS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs).

• Claimed as "historic image", but no historical significance of the scene shown, let alone the image as such, is being described or even hinted at in the article (Scouting in the Federated States of Micronesia). Clearly replaceable with a free photograph of a present-day scout group. Image is not the subject of discussion in the article; even if it were, it doesn't convey any visual information that an image of a present-day group couldn't convey just as well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I can easily argue for the "historicity" of a photograph that depicts a Boy Scout troop in a Japanese internment camp during World War II, or a Girl Scout troop in a similar situation, this one is harder to judge "historical." It depicts nothing of significance, other than a few young girls in girl scout uniforms. The fact that it is 33 years old doesn't in itself make it "historical." I looked through Flickr's free "Micronesia" images, and there are 163 in all. While none currently depict a girl scout troop, it is entirely within rhe realm of possibility (even quite plausible) that someone may upload a free image that could replace the current one. Therefore, as the image is not historical, and is eminently replaceable, I recommend deletion of this image. _D.Jameson 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg

Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fireplace (notify | contribs).

• Fails NFCC#1+8: Snapshot of a person caught in a compromising situation that earned him some notoriety. The person is only seen from the back; the fact that made the image notorious (that he was leaving a gay bar) is not seen on the image at all. No piece of visual information in this image is important to understand the article; in fact, everything that the image presumably represents not only can but must be expressed in the text, because the image doesn't contribute to understanding it at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoLando (notify | contribs).

• This image had to be removed from several articles:
• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

It is currently orphaned but editors want it back, so I'm bringing it here. There has been some debate with local editors arguing the importance of the image at Talk:British naval forces in the Falklands War#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

This is a photograph of an historic British submarine, taken at an historic moment (the submarine is coming back from the Falklands War after having sunk an Argentinian cruiser). However, it fails NFCC#8 in that it makes no actual contribution, as an image, to understanding what it claims to represent. Editors who have been defending it as an "historic image" make a very typical mistake: they confuse the historical importance of a situation with the practical importance of an image for understanding it. This photograph may, for them, have symbolic importance in "representing" the notable historic situation; for the reader who isn't already familiar with the case, it represents nothing. There is no visual information in this image that actually helps the reader to understand the situation it is associated with. Anything this image is claimed to stand for has to be first explained to the reader through text before he can even begin to appreciate what it's about; once that is done, the text has rendered the image superfluous.

Apart from the symbolic historical significance, illustration of the concrete physical appearance of the submarine doesn't constitute grounds for keeping, since it could be replaced with free images of identical sister ships, and/or with an existing image that shows it at a later date, after its decommissioning.

It has additionally been claimed that a tiny visual detail makes it crucial: it is argued that the submarine is flying a "Jolly Roger" flag as a sign of its "kill". However, this detail is hardly visible on the image at all; it can still be adequately explained and covered by text alone; and the significance of that detail (which some British marine insider editors seem to think an awful lot of) is currently entirely unsourced and original research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The so-called replacement picture Image:Warspiteconquerorvaliant.jpg is a great picture for Ships Cemetery or Disarmament articles - not for the only nuclear submarine which sank a ship in wartime. I am neither an Argentinean nor a Briton so I'm pretty neutral. Please insert Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg again. The other picture is like illustrating John F. Kennedy's article with his tomb stone. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want an image of what the submarine physically looked like, go and take a free photo of its identical sister ship, which is apparently a well-preserved museum ship somewhere in Britain. It's not as if any visual difference between the two would be significant for the article, would it? And you are still making that logical mistake: "being the only nuclear submarine which sank a ship in wartime" is not something you can illustrate anyway, so why quote it as an argument here? You want to treat image-worthiness as a function of how important the object of the image is. That's not how NFCC#8 works. We don't include images because they are somehow associated with something important, we include them if and where they teach us something, concrete, visual, about it. This one doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument is completely and utterly ridiculous, "shove in any old image of the same type of submarine and that'll do" seems to be what you're arguing. Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or not? That image is iconic and illustrates a significant event, its there to educate the reader and does so. Justin talk 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to remove it from the articles mentioned, it was a perfectly justifiable use in accordance with wikipedia policies. It was removed and continued to be removed in spite of objections by other editors, clearly a consensus had not been reached.

The image in question documents a historical event; namely the return of HMS Conqueror from the Falklands War. HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear submarine to have ever sunk a warship in a conflict and so the event is notable of its right for that alone. The event is further notable because the sinking of the ARA Belgrano resulted in the withdrawal of the Argentine navy from further participation in the war. The event is also notable because it is credited with ending peace efforts as Argentina used the event as a pretext to withdraw from further talks aimed at preventing the war.

The tiny detail referred to is the flying of a Jolly Roger. The flying of such a flag is a traditon of the Royal Navy submarine service that dates from the first world war (when all submariners were branded pirates). As HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear submarine and only the second submarine since World War 2 to have sank a warship this is again a unique event for which no other image can be used. Merely covering this in the text alone does not adequately describe it in context; that is provided by the image. The flying of the flag also re-inforces certain South American stereotypes that describe the British as "piratas", and is frequently commented upon in Argentina. None of this is original research, provides plenty of examples as to why this is a unique event.

The image is used in part to illustrate the Royal Navies contribution to the Falklands War. It is simply unbelievable that one of the pivotal events in the Falklands War is not an iconic moment or worthy of inclusion in an article about the Royal Navies contribution to the Falklands War. This image is necessary for that purpose, it has been more than adequately justified and clearly satisfies NFCC#8 as it is a significant iconic image that enhances readers appreciation of the topic. It also satisfies NFCC#1 as no free equivalent is available; HMS Conqueror is now decommissioned and the event rather obviously will not be repeated. Justin talk 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? That contribution is close to zero. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, no that is your opinion and as someone once said to me, strongly held opinions do not triumph over wikipedia policies. A rationale has been provided, its an iconic image, its in accordance with wikipedia policies and in my opinion it should stay. You have not provided any concrete evidence to overcome consensus. Clearly the image is there to document a unique event, something that words alone would not convey and the image does so very effectively. Justin talk 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: you need to explain how it contributes. Exactly what is it that it conveys that text couldn't? Name it. Describe it. Simply asserting just won't work. And no, it is not iconic. That, too, would need to be documented, with sourced discussion in the text. The websites that deal with the scene are either Misplaced Pages mirrors, or non-notable sites such as blogs, or they in fact use different images (same scene but different photograph). If other images can be used for the same scene, that's definitely not what "iconic" is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(add) "You wont't get away that easily"? Relax mate, this is about improving coverage of the Falklands War on Misplaced Pages, not some personal conquest Ryan4314 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point me at an image that illustrates the iconic moment when HMS Conqueror returns from the Falklands War, flying the Jolly Roger. All the other images you refer to would be none free content as well and you'd argue against them. Looking at your contribution history all you seem to do is remove NFCC images from wikipedia. It would appear that you have got somewhat mission orientated and don't appear to comprehend you've made a mistake on this occasion. You're pouncing on any contribution that contradicts you with minutes and you seem to be taking people objecting to your actions very personally.

I have set out repeatedly set out for you why the event is unique and iconic, anyone familiar with the Falklands War would agree with my synopsis. If you want to have a citation well online you can check , otherwise I'd recommend Hastings, Max; Simon Jenkins (1983). "Chapter 9", The Battle for the Falklands. Bungay, Suffolk: Book Club Associates, p. 147. So instead of simply trying to undermine what I am saying to you, please take a moment and digest the information instead of looking for avenues to attack and undermine me.

It is utterly iconic image for the Falklands War, its one of a number of images that are so and when I created the Montage for Falklands War I used it in one of the prototypes I put together. If you're unfamiliar with the war then I suggest you should think about respecting the contribution of editors who've made significant contributions to these articles and who are very familiar with the material and are looking to work towards helping readers achieve a better understanding of the conflict. Justin talk 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? (By the way, if that museum you point to has the "jolly roger" on permanent display, you could go there and take a free photo of the Jolly Roger. Wouldn't that be a much better way of illustrating the scene?). And you still haven't illustrated how the photograph is iconic. If it was, wouldn't that museum be showing it? (Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you just don't seem to get it, I've been arguing about the contribution of the image all along. You can assert I'm not doing that all you like but that doesn't change the fact that's what I've been doing. And for the record my comments were not a personal attack, I have a very real concern that you lack perspective on this. You seem to be very goal orientated but forgetting the bigger picture; wikipedia is co-operative enterprise and about producing an online encyclopedia. I'm merely expressing a concern and suggesting that you step back and think a little more before acting that is all. Justin talk 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the existence of other photos was questioned: Here's just five of them , , , , , all of them used by various web sources in alternation with ours. Mind you, my point is not that these would be free replacements for ours (they are probably copyrighted just the same); my point was that none of these has any special status, as a photograph, that makes it particularly memorable and "iconically" associated with the event. A memorable scene, yes, an iconic photograph, no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you'd asked I could have told you exactly where that photograph came from, its an official Royal Navy photograph and all the photos you've turned up are part of the same sequence. The image in question is FKD 13 from the Imperial War Museum collection, in fact if you check the IWM collection the entire sequence you've unearthed is available and some more besides. The images are free to use provided copyright is acknowledged. Whilst I'd agree the copyright information could do with being updated that doesn't undermine the argument that the use of this photo is in accordance with wiki policies and it enhances the articles in question. Any of those photos individually could be used but this photograph is iconic, noticeably several of the examples you've shown reproduce the very same photo. It is also reproduced in numerous books on the war. I'm sorry but how do you think that by illustrating the widespread use of this photo in any way supports your argument? Justin talk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They are six different photos, none of the ones I linked to is the same. I was pointing to them to show that there isn't any one that is individually iconic, in being individually more firmly entrenched in collective memory than the others. I'm sorry, but I still have the feeling you don't quite realise what "iconic" means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: A very obvious NFCC #8 violation. This image does not augment the text at all in any way. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The text on the image page is not that helpful, the use of the image in the context of the pages where it was used provide justification. The image does significantly augment the text, without the image the article is no where near as informative. Justin talk 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for use at least at HMS Conqueror (S48) per User:Necessary Evil. The replacement image does not adequately illustrate the HMS Conqueror as it is significantly obscured in the replacement image, and the image that was taken long after the ship was decommissioned. To use a free image of a submarine of the same class in an article that is supposed to be about that particular submarine would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. What we are being asked to do is equivalent to either replacing the fair use images at Kurt Cobain with images of Dave Grohl, or with a partially obscured image of Cobain's grave. That's absurd. Pfainuk talk 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I should add that I think it's also fair use on the British naval forces article. An image of a ship returning from the best known and most controversial engagement of the Falklands War clearly illustrates the notability and effect of the British naval forces in that war. Pfainuk talk 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't close. It is such an obvious fair use of the photograph as to be blatant on its face. Fair use demands that the photograph be used only "to illustrate the subject in question", and "where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." These are both very easily fulfilled by this photograph, and thus I recommend keeping it. I also note that one editor feeling that many other editors "misunderstand" what "historical" means does not a very good deletion rationale make. _D.Jameson 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't misrepresent policy. Those criteria are neither part of what legal "fair use" is, nor are they part of our NFCC. Your statement is miles away from either. NFCC demands that an image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and that this understanding cannot be imparted in any other way. Nobody has as yet made even the slightest attempt at substantiating how this image does so. Simply claiming that it does won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, a fair use rationale has been provided, and that does conform with policy. Justin talk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've restored the image to two of the articles for which I find it particularly aprapos. I find that making the editorial decision to remove it while the IfD is going on is a poor choice. If the decision is to delete, then it would be quite a simple procedure to remove it. _D.Jameson 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd support that action, I thought it was inappropriate to remove it as well but did not wish to edit war over it. I did find the presumption of the part of the editor that this image "will be deleted" to be somewhat presumptuous. Justin talk 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Support it as well. I would like to express my concern about the way this has been handled by Future Perfect, as aside Justin's comment (which I agree with), I think that edit warring to remove an image from an article so that it can be speedy deleted as orphaned is abuse of process. And I note that it was Justin that refused to continue the edit war, not Future Perfect. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Most of the books I've seen regarding the Falklands War has the Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg as an illustration. I'm very interested in all those "different images (same scene but different photograph)". Or are they just pictures of some black metal thingies in the water. The very idea of going to take free photos of well-preserved museum ships as substitutes for the existing image is an insult to people's intelligence. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Serious question: if this has been published in several books, can you check what copyright owner they credit it to? Or can somebody contact the website owner who we are currently crediting it to? Because that would make it rather unlikely it's ultimately his. And we need to be certain about copyright, otherwise that would be in itself a mandatory reason to speedy-delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See above comment, the origin of that photo is easily found. The information to provide a fair use rationale is readily to hand. Regards, Justin talk 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I am not sure it does meet the requirements under non-free usage. This is not a picture of the sub *sinking* the war ship -- that would be iconic. It is not a shot of major damage which was overcome to still limp back into port. It is not the largest (or other *physical* manifestation) ship that needs to be illistrated to be fully understood. I can be told it is a sub that did great things; I don't need to see it to understand. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Fut.Perf doesn't understand the significance of the "Jolly Roger". In British history, flying the Jolly Roger signifies a submarine kill. No submarine, anywhere in the world, has made a kill since World War 2, which is significant due to submarines playing such a large part in modern warfare. Also, more significantly the flying of the Jolly Roger spawned the Argentine insult of calling the British "pirates", this term has fallen into common usage, even in the media! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand the historical significance of the Jolly Roger perfectly well. But the image doesn't tell me what the Jolly Roger does, it doesn't help me to understand what the Jolly Roger is, in fact, it doesn't even show me the Jolly Roger at all (it's like, three pixels). I know that the Jolly Roger is there only because the text tells me. I know all these things about the meaning of the Jolly Roger only because the text tells me. Again: just because the story is important doesn't mean an image related to the story is important for understanding it. People are still failing to understand the logical distinction between an image and the thing it shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid your logic is flawed, have u never heard the term "a picture paints a thousand words"? Of course you have to be told what's in the picture, by your logic, without a description, iconic photos like this one, could merely be construed as some Asian kids running/hopping/skipping on a road with a fire/tornado/plain old big ball of smoke in the background, and therefore should be deleted. In fact as this isn't on a article about "Children suffering napalm burns from American forces during the Vietnam War" perhaps u should try n delete it lol? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing out that other, truly iconic, photograph. The big difference is that one actually is the subject of encyclopedic discussion in the articles it is used in – much unlike this here. And the submarine image just doesn't "speak a thousand words". What words would those be? Name a few. Just a few. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • LOL, "a picture paints a thousand words" means that every photo has a story behind it, obviously this one does. And the Phuc photo isn't on an article specifically about kids being burned, it's on Kim Phuc's biography, the same reason reason why Conqueror's most famous photo should be on it's article. You're contradicting yourself now Ryan4314 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • No, the Phuc photo is on Phuc's biography because it was the photo that made her notable, and it is the story of the photo itself that is being told. None of the submarine articles discusses the story of the photo itself; the photo is entirely non-notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
            • The photo is of part of the events that Conks famous! Mate, seems ur clutching at straws here, u keep changing ur argument and I'm sorry to say I think ur too proud to admit when ur wrong. You're turning this into some personal little "battle" or something, hence your "You wont't get away that easily". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
            • P.S. I have to go AFK now, don't take my leaving as a sign of lack of interest, just have to go ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Per above discussion. Apcbg (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brewers-76sked.JPG

Image:Brewers-76sked.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benrouse03 (notify | contribs).

• Contains copyrighted logo. I suspect the uploader took a photo of a board/banner or something, but that does not mean that they have the right to release it into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The logo is an issue, and based on the users usage after upload, it states it is a copy of the "1976 Pocket Schedule" on the 1976 Milwaukee Brewers season.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:CW Building.jpg

Image:CW Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ConceptWave (notify | contribs).

• The size, silly shape, lack of meta-data and lack of explicit sourcing is leading me to believe this has been taken from elsewhere on the 'net. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - based on the fact the text of the article it is located on is a copyright violation of . They do not have pictures with the page but I would figure that the images have come from some internal company site -- they almost look like employee id card head shots. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fahne oberjosbach0001.jpg

Image:Fahne oberjosbach0001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

Image:SAVEMentmore.jpg

Image:SAVEMentmore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Catherine_de_Burgh (notify | contribs).

• Book cover, but this book is not discussed in the article, nor does the addition of the cover increase reader understanding in any way. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This image is also intended for use in another page that is currently under development in userspace, which discusses this campaign extensively; as the image is fair use, it cannot be placed into the article until the move to mainspace. Risker (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It is vitally important to a page I am writing in user space. Giano (talk)#

Image:Mtloosemore1.jpg

Image:Mtloosemore1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pauljoffe (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, possible CV - Non-notable parody, and contains link to uploader's own site. Claims to be derivative work of copyright free images, but source information is not made specific. Mosmof (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cromoglycate.png

Image:Cromoglycate.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jfdwolff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. Replaced by Image:Cromoglicate.png
• Delete. Redundant. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mother Teresa CS logo mission statemet.JPG

Image:Mother Teresa CS logo mission statemet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Leafsfan67 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned image, not in use, doubt it'll ever be GoGo 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg

Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carioca (notify | contribs).

• Obsoleted fair use image (Wikimedia Commons has a similar image in higher resolution) nneonneo 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)