Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

Image:ClamWin_0.93_Windows_screenshot.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 debate was Speedy Delete as copyvio

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ClamWin_0.93_Windows_screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PatrickPatience (notify | contribs).

As per this. Its code under GPL, but not its screenshot. This screenshot was taken on Vista, and all shown interface widgets are copyrighted to Micro$oft. O sama K 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Vista is copyrightable. ViperSnake151 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Keep. —An gr 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deer_Park_alpha_1_options.png

Image:Deer_Park_alpha_1_options.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taestell (notify | contribs).

As per this. Its code under MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, but not its screenshot. This screenshot was taken on Windows, and all shown interface widgets are copyrighted to Micro$oft. O sama K 06:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I thought on Commons we finally agreed that the Windows Classic UI was too simple enough to be copyrightable. ViperSnake151 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion on IfD for Image:Deer_Park_alpha_1_installation.png — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Keep. —An gr 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deer_Park_alpha_1_installation.png

Image:Deer_Park_alpha_1_installation.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taestell (notify | contribs).

As per this. Its code under MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, but not its screenshot. This screenshot was taken on Windows, and all shown interface widgets are copyrighted to Micro$oft. O sama K 06:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I thought on Commons we finally agreed that the Windows Classic UI was too simple enough to be copyrightable. ViperSnake151 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is.--O sama K 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Uploader tagged GFDL, but gave a source of a commercial website. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

Deleted.  Combined with movie poster, fails minimal use given its usage. WilyD 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John_Abraham_Akshay_Kumar.jpg

Image:John_Abraham_Akshay_Kumar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mp5517 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of actors in a movie. The article already has an image of the movie poster. This is non-free, but adds no info. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Delete. —An gr 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hvt18a.png

Image:Hvt18a.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melesse (notify | contribs).

Image is rationaled to "illustrate[] the film in question and aid[] commentary on the plot outline." Ignoring that this is a television episode and not a film (a copied and pasted rationale?), illustration in the infobox does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic ("Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment"). (WP:NFCC#8)
The image of Bart and Homer Simpson digging up the barrels is superflous to the accompanying text saying the same, being already replaced by free content. (WP:NFCC#1, #3a) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well do you know of an image from the episode which is more image "policy" complient? Gran² 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is compliance, not degrees of compliance, and this image falls short of the threshold and therefore gets deleted. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Annoying to see this debate; the image is such an obvious keep I can't bring myself to delete it. THe image is a piece of the television episode Homer vs. the 18th amendment, used to illustrate an article on that episode which contains extensive discussion and critical commentary. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of both the NFCC and the principle of fair use to think critical commentary must exist on this specific frame, a single frame is used rather than the whole episode to meet the criterion of "minimal use". The image substantially enhances any human reader's understanding of the article - visualizations assist in understanding immensely; i'd rather not have to dig through scholarly papers on education to justify a well known fact, but if someone demands it I probably will. Whether it's exactly logical or not, an image of something enables human learning so that readers understand and retain more. If I'm someone who's never heard of The Simpsons, for instance, the screenshot allows me to visualise what's happening much better, what the episodes about, et cetera. WilyD 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot point of Bart and Homer Simpson digging up buried barrels is simply understood by the article's libre text, and that's what this image is illustrating. You're opining that this single copyrighted image enhances the readers' understanding of the article as a whole because the Homo sapien is a more visually-centric learner than otherwise, and that this specific image so thoroughly encapsulates the whole of this article that it verily improves the comprehensibility of the article?
  If you've never heard of The Simpsons, then seeing two characters performing a simply describable action (un-burying barrels), when those same characters are duly illustrated in their respective articles, is unnecessary.
  The specific points of the non-free content criteria (and I) ask, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?", as well as what specifically about this article becomes less or more understandable with the removal/retention of this copyrighted material? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles are seperate publications, they need to be to conform to the ahistory/authorship requirements of the GFDL. It's not the case that a reader reading this article will necessarily have access to Homer Simpson. The reality is that everything is the article is less understandable when its unillustrated, not some specific point that falls apart. Which is, in fact, the point. The image is used to illustrate the whole work of which it forms a minimal part. So we ask "can Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment be conveyed as well without visual identification of it?; the answer is "no". Wily D 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can the article "Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment" be conveyed as well without visually depicting two characters engaged in common, textually sufficiently understandable actions? Yes. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This misjudges the nature of human understanding. Wily D 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WilyD is wrong. No, as consensus in dozens of similar debates has shown, there is not a blanket allowance for just any arbitrary screenshot from an episode, just for showing some aspect of the plot. While it isn't necessary that the specific frame shown must be commented upon, for the image to serve as a substantial enhancement to understanding it is necessary that it be at least related to a specific point of analysis provided in the text. This one isn't. Of course, "visualization assist in understanding". But understanding what? In this case, understanding the physical surroundings of the situation where Homer finds those barrels? Hardly an element important enough to warrant an exceptional departure from our free-content-only policies. There is another image in the same article that is much better justified, the one showing the reference to Nighthawks (Image:Nighthawksreference.png). Now, that's what non-free images can legitimately do. There's a world of a difference between these two. At least under the minimality criterion, keep the one that really does something useful, delete the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this isn't what I've said. Both policy and longstanding practice do dictate that a small piece of a larger copyrighted piece can be used to expand the readers understanding of the whole piece; a discussion of a comicbook character can use a panel without justifying the specific panel, as it forms part of a larger work, for instance. By examining the usage too narrowly, you miss how its being used and how it fits into policy. Read the article as a whole, consider the frame a piece of the episode, and not a copyrighted work unto itself. WilyD 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you arguing that this image encapsulates and represents the entirety of this episode and serves as the singular visual identification of it, similar to a film poster or album cover? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Something like this, although I'm unsure the parallel is exact; given the differing relationship between the piece used and the item discussed in all three cases. I'm not really convinced we should use movie posters in general in this way at all, which makes me uncomfortable agreeing to this. Wily D 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WillyD. A single image indeed expands the perspective. There are no other superfluous images. Keep it, though it could be retagged. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You too, find the libre text provided poorly/un-comprehensible w/o the application of copyrighted media depicting digging and barrels? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're complimentary, not competitive. Fundamental nature of human learning. Wily D 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is supported by policy WP:NFCC#1 perhaps? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete easily described with text, not the subject of critical commentry Fasach Nua (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.