Misplaced Pages

:Files for deletion/2008 August 12 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 13 August 2008 (→Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg: Reading problem.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:46, 13 August 2008 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (→Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg: Reading problem.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 11 August 13 >

August 12

Image:The_Yojiki_Baby_Swagbag.pdf

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

Image:Grammy Award.jpg

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

Image:Pachelbels Canon In D II.ogg

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

Image:$R$WALogo.png

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

Image:Unknown_PYC_Burgee.jpg

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

Image:QYC_Unknown_TYC_Burgee.jpg

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

Image:QYC_BURGEE.jpg

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

Image:QYC_Unknown_Three_triangles_burgee.jpg

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

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).

Image:Quatsino.jpg

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

Image:QuirkycastleLunar.jpg

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

Image:Quiver-1.jpg

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

Image:QTQ1966.png

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


Image:L_f085da2816b4ba86a007d8a6ed56b0d7.jpg

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

Image:LDS_hymnals_1.JPG

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

Image:LDS_hymnals_2.JPG

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

Image:LED_EscapingSilence.jpg

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

Image:LEITCH.jpg

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

Image:LHH_Catastrophe_unit.jpg

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

Image:LHH_Stertzer_heart.jpg

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

Image:LHH_Churchill_wheelchair.jpg

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

Image:LHS_Logo_SHADOW.gif

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

Image:LIOGOS.jpg

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

Image:LIONEL_DEJEAN_WS2M_MODEL_AGENCY.jpg

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

Image:LJ.JPG

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

Image:LJB_Headshot_2006.jpg

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

Image:LJM.JPG

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

Image:LNRpic1.jpg

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

Image:LMMakai.jpg

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

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)
  • Delete as the image fails NFCC#8. Omitting it would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This one fails NFCC clearly. — BQZip01 —  04:45, 13 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)
  • Delete per Fut.Perf.. I believe the analysis of the failure of NFCC is correct. -Nv8200p talk 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

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

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)

Sorry to butt in here, but it seemed like the most appropriate place. Removing a bunch of images and then claiming the image is orphaned really rubs people the wrong way. Nominating it for deletion first and then cleaning it up after a deletion seems to work best and results in better acrimony amongst Wikipedians. Just my — BQZip01 —  05:04, 13 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)
Actually no they're not six different photos, is a cropped picture from for example, is the same image as the one we're discussing its just cropped, is the next one in the sequence and is just another one in the sequence. Aside from that, noticeably you didn't address the point that whilst anyone could be used but the photo in question is reproduced in numerous books about the war and is an iconic image. I'm sorry but I really do think you're wrong on this issue and you don't seem to be listening to other editors. Justin talk 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's only a very minor point, but just for the record, no, you are mistaken, they are six different images, no two of them are the same, look more carefully at the backgrounds. But it's of no big importance. What's important is, in the context of Misplaced Pages fair use debates, the whole talk about "iconic" historical images refers to one very special exceptional situation: those (very few) images that are so famous that they in themselves, as creative works of their photographers, become the focus of encyclopedic discussion. An iconic image is one where you'd want to spend at least a few paragraphs discussing the photograph as such. Not the ship and its actions in the war, but the photographer and his work. Who took the photograph, when and why, how was it published, how did the public react to it, and so on. The photograph, not the ship. It's only this treatment that gives the whole idea of "iconicness" its special status with respect to fair use justifications. There is nothing of that sort in any of the articles here, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid you're mistaken and they're not six separate images, my point is that all can be retrieved from IWM website. You're also continuously changing the rationale to justify deletion. First it was NFCC#1, then it was NFCC#8 and now its quibbling about its iconic status.
Well lets consider that image you suggested the Iwo Jima image. That isn't actually an individual image but one of a series of stills that were taken at the time, with an accompanying film. There is only one image out of that sequence that is considered iconic and widely used. The same applies to this image, its one of a series of images but for whatever reason, this image is repeatedly chosen in books and documentaries about the war. In both cases, why would that image itself be chosen and repeatedly so when in both cases there are plenty to choose from? There are other images of the war that are considred iconic, for example one which I chose to include in my Falklands War montage is that of HMS Antelope exploding. Again an iconic image of the war instantly recognisable to a wide audience but again one of a sequence of images.
Your rationale is also unfairly narrow to define iconic. Certain images become iconic because they are repeatedly used to illustrate a topic such that they become instantly recognisable. A few of these from the Falklands War include the Yomper, HMS Antelope exploding, Belgrano sinking, HMS Sheffield on fire and HMS Conqueror on her return. It is an iconic image for that very reason.
You keep asssering things to be obvious, when to the contrary a number of editors disagree with you. It is nothing of the sort. Justin talk 22:25, 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)
        • It appears that anyone who disagrees with you on how to interpret NFCC policy with regards to an image is attempting to "misrepresent policy." You're wrong sometimes, FP. The HMS Conqueror returning from the sinking is historical, for all the reasons outlined in the many comments on the matter. That you choose not to recognize this doesn't matter at all. Hair-splitting semantics is all that could possibly remove the historicity from this photograph. No warship, tank, or any other instrument of war can be separated from the acts it commits. If it commits historical acts, images of it returning from the mission in which it did so are inherently historical. D.Jameson 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • He might be wrong about everything else, but FP is correct in his interpretation of NFCC. The question isn't whether or not the image is historic. No one is debating that. The question is, is this historic image being used to discuss the historicity, or is it simply used to illustrate the subject? I mentioned the Hand of God goal below. The famous picture with Maradona jumping over Shilton is historic and iconic - there's no question about that. But what makes the use of the photograph in the Misplaced Pages article fair use is that the article discusses the photograph itself, not just what the photograph illustrates. A similar example is the Zidane headbutt. The image fails as fair use if it's simply being used to describe the headbutt or the 2006 World Cup Final. But it is fair use when it's being used to describe the internet meme derived from the headbutt footage. As far as I can tell, the image is simply being used to illustrate the event or the submarine, not to provide any discussion or commentary about the picture itself. Mosmof (talk) 00:10, 13 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)
  • 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)
    • Comment I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally comment on someone's rationale but are you serious? How do you expect a picture of a nuclear submarine submerged in the South Atlantic to be taken? Usually the only thing to mark a sinking by a submarine is its return to harbour, its a well known tradition in many navies to fly some sort of symbol (in the Royal Navy a Jolly Roger, in the US Navy a broom) to signify its successes. That is exactly what is shown here and the image makes that understanding so much clearer. Justin talk 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - the fact I said the picture of the sinking would be iconic is exactly the point you made -- to get *that* picture would make the photograph itself a topic of discussion not just what was being captured in the photo.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:03, 13 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)
                • On Misplaced Pages, we don't go by the "picture paints a thousand words" rule of thumb. Non-free media has to support the text in some specific way, not just some vague way. The way this is supposed to work is that the reader reads the article, forms a mental picture, and then after viewing the media, says, "Oh, I totally get it now!" So you can't just use the non-free photo without actually having text that makes the photo required. That's why this fails NFCC 8. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • I think the point that you seem to be missing is that the image was used in context with supporting text, until it was removed from several articles, declared to be orphaned and then nominated for a speedy deletion. That of itself was an abuse of process. There is a fair use rationale for this image and there is no equivalent none-free image. Not only does it satisfy NFCC#8 but it could be the poster child for that policy. Justin talk 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • No, "poster child" for that policy is like V–J day in Times Square, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, or Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. where the photo is essential to the article. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • And in the context of the Falklands War this image is essential. Do you want to know something else, I've never seen this image V–J day in Times Square and as I'm not American that is probably unsurprising. And I've never heard of the Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. thing either. Neither mean anything to me, absolutely nothing and I doubt that either mean much to many Brits. You might like to consider iconic images in one English language culture are not necessarily iconic in other English language cultures but that clearly doesn't diminish their value to a global endeavour like Misplaced Pages. Sorry but I think your argument is somewhat US-centric. Justin talk 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • I think the point isn't to compare the length and the girth of our iconic images (though mine *is* bigger), but to point out that the purpose of "iconic" or "historic" images on Misplaced Pages. Those images are significant enough that the images essentially demand articles on themselves. And clearly, it would be impossible to have an article about Iwo Jima without actually showing the photograph, because the photograph was front and center of the story. A more Anglo-friendly example would be Hand of God goal, where the photograph was a major part of the controversy, and it would be impossible to understand the subject without seeing the photograph. However, it would be inappropriate to use the Iwo Jima photograph in an article about flagpoles, or to use the Hand of God article to illustrate Diego Maradona or Peter Shilton or the 1986 World Cup. But that's essentially what you're arguing for with the HMS Conqueror pic. Mosmof (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • Exactly; I picked out those because I know them; but all of those photos are notable because secondary sources say so and we have that information in the article. For a UK photo that fits the bill, Profumo Affair has one, although I'd still prefer if that article talked about the photo more than it does. My point is that in each of these cases, the photo itself is the story or at least part of it, whereas in this case the photo merely depicts the events being told. Also, when I say that photo is essential to the article, I mean that those articles simply cannot be understood well without the usage of the photos. howcheng {chat} 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per above discussion. Apcbg (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Usage in the vessel article is fair given the circumstances of the image, and similarly it appears to be fair to use it in Op Corporate related context. I also think the previous, larger, version is more useful as the Jolly Roger is fairly clear in the way it's not clear in the current version. The alternative proposed isn't of Conq anyway, it's the hull that used to be commissioned as Conq, a subtle distinction but significant one. ALR (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Without prior knowledge or supporting text, the image tells the reader nothing. The submarine is notable. The sinking is notable. The image, independent of the subject, is neither notable nor informative, and thus fails NFCC. Mosmof (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • commentAre you aware that the image had supporting text in the articles it was used in? Used in context the image tells the reader a lot. Justin talk 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • response' I think you missed my point, that because it doesn't really tell us anything without accompanying text, its purpose can most likely be replaced by prose alone. Mosmof (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) edited to add: I'm looking at the context of the usage in each of the articles above, Royal Navy Submarine Service, Churchill class submarine, British naval forces in the Falklands War, HMS Conqueror (S48), I see nothing to suggest the image meets WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. The supporting text merely provides caption, and except for the use in HMS Conqueror (S48), the image is used to decorate, not to inform. Mosmof (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Thank you for the reply and in response I don't think I missed your point but I do appreciate you taking the time to look further into it. I just happen to disagree with you, prose without the accompanying image is not that helpful to the reader. The image makes the difference, hence I don't believe it is there simply to decorate. Were it used frivoulously as decoration, I would not be so passionate about retaining it. But however I do respect you have a different opinion and appreciate that you at least took the trouble to investigate how the image was used. Regards, Justin talk 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    It clearly does NOT fail #8. Any image apart from the image and event it depicts is meaningless. This is pointless semantical hair-splitting by those who wish to interpret NFCC in the strictest way possible. D.Jameson 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Keep Clearly notable historic image. As a side note, nuke subs can stay underwater for extended periods of time. It is likely this was the first time she surfaced after the kill...making the event even more notable. — BQZip01 —  05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      Yet another hair-splitting, semantically gymnastic attempt to separate the photograph from the event. Just because we disagree with you, FP, doesn't mean we are wrong. D.Jameson 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      No, it just means you are unwilling to take the rules seriously. Show me the part of the rules where it says you can use any image to illustrate an even just because the event is notable. It's just not there. NFCC says something entirely different. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brewers-76sked.JPG

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

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)

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).

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).

Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg

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

Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg

Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by B Milnes (notify | contribs).
  • This is a non-free image of an existing building whose exterior is still in the same condition as in this image. A free image of the building exists at Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg. While it may be on private property, in theory the image could be replaced by a free image from someone requesting permission to visit the site or from someone who already owns a similar free image. While it may be nice to have a view of this side of the building, the existence of a free image of the building overrides the need for an aesthetically perfect non-free image. Therefore, this images violates NFCC criteria #1. MBisanz 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The building is now heavily guarded, replacement images are not possible without breaking the British laws of trespass, and risking personal safety. The replacement image Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg shows minor facades, it is not even the secondary garden facade. The image nominated for deletion is the principal facade. The house now has planning permission for major structural alterations which will shortly be executed. It is vital this image is retained. Giano (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Suggesting Image:IMG 65582a copy.jpg, a photo of the back corner, is in any way a replacement of Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg, the main entrance and full view of the building, is kind of like saying a photo of the service entrance of a skyscraper will suffice as a representation of the building as a whole. Except, of course, that this building as it exists in this photograph, is no longer accessible and will not be in existence in this current state for much longer. Risker (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    Also this image could be a free replacement if the author lowered the license setting. That images existence also means it is not impossible to get an image of this building. MBisanz 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, that is the garden facade the entrance facade clearly illustrates the Victorian peculiarity of burying wings in the ground and disguising wings. Secondly, that facade is not about to be altered, while the facade you are so desperate to delete is about to be altered. Giano (talk)
I'm not convinced as to this image's uniqueness or this viewing critical nature to understanding the subject of the article and believe our mission of delivering free, reusable content should supersede a minor aesthetic issue when acceptable replacements are available. I had this exact same issue last week with an article I was writing, and accepted the lower quality free view as the better alternative. MBisanz 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The "peculiarity" that you speak of is best discussed at Victorian architecture (or whatever the exact style is), where it can be accompanied by an appropriate free photograph. Besides, the burying of wings in the ground isn't even discussed in this article in the first place. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. NFCC #1 violation. The building architecture is pretty much the same all around the building, so seeing the rear doesn't impart any more information than seeing the front does. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What absolute rubbish! Not worthy of further comment. Giano (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Utterly irreplaceable, and I fully agree with both Giano and Risker's rationale. D.Jameson 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Risker; the notion that it is replaceable in such a way is nonsense. —Giggy 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The entire discussion here seems to revolve around whether the image is replaceable. Given that the facade is about to be changed, the historical context of the picture, and lack of access, it seems that this image should be kept. I also concur that an up close image of a small portion of the structure does not convey the same information as a wide-angle shot. — BQZip01 —  05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HJBposter0305_prf3.jpg

Image:HJBposter0305_prf3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sammyspop (notify | contribs).

Image:HIroshima_Scarf-Fan.gif

Image:HIroshima_Scarf-Fan.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Naomikramer (notify | contribs).

Image:HOGG036.jpg

Image:HOGG036.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brette (notify | contribs).

Image:Dalai_lama_and_desmond_tutu_at_sfu.jpg

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

Image:01_Best_commetrex_color_logo.jpg

Image:01_Best_commetrex_color_logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scuba1aja (notify | contribs).

Image:Hobo picture.JPG

Image:Hobo picture.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hajima (notify | contribs).