| Revision as of 23:06, 11 July 2009 editJ Milburn (talk | contribs)Administrators129,890 edits →File:German Soviet.jpg: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:39, 11 July 2009 edit undoCalliopejen1 (talk | contribs)Administrators132,969 edits →File:German Soviet.jpgNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| ::The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. ]\<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | ::The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. ]\<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::The issue is about our ], specifically, point 8. Does the use of this image significantly increase reader understanding of the topic? No. You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. ] (]) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | :::The issue is about our ], specifically, point 8. Does the use of this image significantly increase reader understanding of the topic? No. You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. ] (]) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per ]8 - doesn't add to readers' understanding at all. I have long meant to nominate this image for deletion myself. No one is going to say ''aha, that's what they were talking about'' or anything like that upon seeing this image. ] (]) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:39, 11 July 2009
| < July 10 | July 12 > |
|---|
July 11
File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg
- File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Srinivas (notify | contribs).
- I am the one who uploaded it and now I would like to delete it. Thanks. Srinivas 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg
- File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Disavian (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned non-free image. Orphaned by myself as only use was in Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate which was an article on the rivalry, not the book and was thus clearly contrary to NFCC 1 and 8. CIreland (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg
- File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fallout boy (notify | contribs).
- Two images have been added since the Playgirl cover was uploaded in 2005. The fair use rationale is no longer valid. APK that's not my name 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Alania 10 12.png
- 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⚡ 19:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- This personally drawn map of Alania is not supported by any source, see here, here and here. As such this orphan image as no usefulness and thus it is unencyclopedic. Martintg (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- 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:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png
- File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mosedschurte (notify | contribs).
- Contains non-free elements. As a decorative image, this should be replaced with a completely free image, or at least have the non-free elements cut. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- keep - as the page clearly explains, the image is not "decorative" and the proper tags are included with each image. There is no problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain what an image of men holding a piece of paper is adding to the respective articles? J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just realised that this image was primarily being used on a template. Non-free images (which this is, due to the non-free image within it) are not appropriate for use on a template. This kind of "picture to show relations" should be entirely free. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain what an image of men holding a piece of paper is adding to the respective articles? J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- FIXED - To solve the problem, I just replaced the one non-free image within the file with a free image here. Note, this was after this deletion request was started.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem was fixed by Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Issue resolved, consider nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg
_crop.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).
_crop.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2009+July+11%23File%3ASailor+sculpture+%28Kirkland%2C+Washington%29+crop.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_crop.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_crop.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- If non-free, this image is not justified. This particular statue is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
File:German Soviet.jpg
- Clearly unwarranted image. Yes, maybe the meeting was important, but what it looked like is not. We do not need a non-free image to know what men holding paper looked like. The copy-paste rationales are completely unilluminating, and fail to explain anything. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The articles themselves, at least the ones I've seen, discuss quite clearly the post-Poland invasion coordination discussed therein illustrated by the photo. Doesn't seem to be a problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that they discuss the post-Poland invasion coordination. They don't discuss this image though- this image is serveral men and a piece of paper. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- FIXED The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage (note: this might even have some sort of free rationale, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter here) and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in new usage rationales in the file just inserted here.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. Dc76\ 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is about our non-free content criteria, specifically, point 8. Does the use of this image significantly increase reader understanding of the topic? No. You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. Dc76\ 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC8 - doesn't add to readers' understanding at all. I have long meant to nominate this image for deletion myself. No one is going to say aha, that's what they were talking about or anything like that upon seeing this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
