Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 12 July 2009

July 11

File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg

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 as G7 by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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: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 The fair use rationale is no longer valid.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)

File:Alania 10 12.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PANONIAN (notify | contribs).

• 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)
• 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)
• Keep good to hear issues was resolved--Jacurek (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg

File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).

• 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)

File:German Soviet.jpg

File:German Soviet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs).

• 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)

IMHO, this image helps increase the understanding of the article(s) by the reader, because few (if any) other images of Soviet and Nazi officers discussing demarcation lines are available on WP. (the point 8 you mention) If such images exist, please do give me one or two links, and you will swing my opinion to your side. My point is, humbly, even simpler: the image as used where used does not infringe on copyright low. If you believe it does, it shouldn't be a problem for you to point what it violates. Dc76\ 01:08, 12 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)

  The reader could however say in his mind aha, Soviet and Nazi officers were talking about dividing territory like good friends or something of the kind. Are we forbidden to add to WP material that might tint the "holy" memory of the Soviet Union? I hope not. The image has a serious information to deliver, perhaps too serious, and possibly thus is more carefully scrutinized for copyright. Dc76\ 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Like good friends? That's not apparent in the least from this image. Yes, they stood next to each other. But one could probably guess that without an image... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  BTW this has nothing to do with the "holy memory of the Soviet Union", just WP image policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep see my comments above. Dc76\ 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep see my comments above, and this was already the subject of a long deletion discussion, where it was voted to "keep". I

In addition, as a separate reason, it may be public domain anyway. People had apparently assumed that because a company was selling subject matter DVDs of cut up Die Deutsche Wochenschau films here, that it was not. That has zero bearing on whether it is in the public domain. For example, this business selling footage specifically lists Die Deutsche Wochenschau footage under "Public Domain Films And Royalty Free Stock Footage". In addition, Die Deutsche Wochenschau are available in full length in places like the internet archive, which lists them as "Open Source Movies," such as Die Deutsche Wochenschau No. 512 here. Other sites also list Die Deutsche Wochenschau as being the public domain, such as "THIS FILM IS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN! THIS IS PART OF THE German Wartime Newsreel (Die Deutsche Wochenschau)" and "Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreels are public domain." It is also not clear if the German government or other entity that originally shot the footage retained rights or whether it is in the public domain (regardless of its capture later by U.S. forces, which is a separate issue).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The previous deletion discussion ended as keep bc the image was retagged as PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on copyright status Misplaced Pages:PD#German_World_War_II_images says that most of the Wochenschau reels are still copyrighted. I think proof is needed that this particular reel was seized if this is going to be tagged as PD. See previous discussion of this image's copyright here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Dc76 comments.--Jacurek (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Iconic image. 'Nuff said (above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, not enough said. We don't suddenly get to do whatever we want with an image because we think it's "iconic". If it's so iconic, where's the sourced discussion of it? J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Archived files for deletion discussions