Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 August 24
Appearance
August 24
- fair use restriction, picture can be used in MSNBC or MSNBC news article but not in any other articles. Speedy delete
Storm05 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Deadkid dk (notify | contribs). Source of image is not known, and image doesn't appear to actually be over 100 years old. The uploader (Deadkid dk) does not know where the image originated, only knowing that it was found on his hard drive. See also the talk page for the image. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Romanm (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Commons image Image:Flag of Syria.svg — Wwagner 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Romanm (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Commons image Image:Flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis.svg — Wwagner 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Mojca Miklavec (notify | contribs). OR, OB bu Commons image Image:Flag_of_Slovenia.svg — Wwagner 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Vnenov (notify | contribs). OR, WP:NOR, a photo of a device the uploader invented. BigDT 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Vnenov (notify | contribs). OR, WP:NOR, an advertisement for tsomething the uploader invented BigDT 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Vnenov (notify | contribs). OR, cites the "2005 Official U.S. Figure Skating Rulebook" as its source, so possibly CV BigDT 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Vnenov (notify | contribs). OR, music for the aforementioned invention BigDT 11:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Neovu79 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Screenshot from a football game broadcast showing Washington Redskins defensive coach Gregg Williams. Not a valid example of fair use since article does not offer critical commentary on the football broadcast. BigDT 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Neovu79 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Screenshot of Joe Gibbs from a football game broadcast. This is not a valid example of fair use because it is being used to identify Coach Gibbs, not to offer critical commentary on the broadcast. BigDT 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Moldedpulp (notify | contribs). OR, image includes a timestamp and a manufacturer's label making it difficult to imagine an encyclopedic use as is. (Note: according to the user's talk page, this user has been blocked indefinitely for spam. So I'm guessing this pic is a part of that spam.) BigDT 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Falcanary (notify | contribs). OR, LQ, CV, the licensing explanation is good for a laugh though BigDT 11:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Mozart2005 (notify | contribs). Obsoleted by Image:Carmen_habanera.svg on Commons Wereon 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by C.byron (notify | contribs). OB Mark83 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by C.byron (notify | contribs). UE, OR, LQ, no fair use rationale Mark83 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by C.byron (notify | contribs). UE, OR, LQ, no fair use rationale Mark83 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by C.byron (notify | contribs). UE, OR, LQ, no fair use rationale Mark83 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted from August 15 (uploader not notified): Image:Anti-aliasing.png (talk | delete)
- Uploaded by User:Booyabazooka (notify | contribs). OR, replaced in article about Anti-aliasing by much better examples.--SWojczyszyn 08:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Shinobi sniper (notify | contribs). Fair use image supersceded by Image:Maddoxtacoma.jpg, a free image. Hbdragon88 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Celine_in_texas (notify | contribs). OR howcheng {chat} 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Daftmc (notify | contribs). Advertisement for a book. BrownCow • (how now?) 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Lax119 (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow • (how now?) 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion for being a duplicate of Image:Xiamen Gaoqi International Airport.jpg instead. --BrownCow • (how now?) 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by JDoorjam (notify | contribs). OR, UE, possibly inappropriate fairuse rationale as the article Santorum (sexual slang) does not document this website. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article does discuss the web site. In fact, there's an entire paragraph dedicated to its use in Google-bombing techniques to popularize the term "santorum". It's completely appropriate in that context, and is only an orphan image because you removed it
without discussion from the article. You also say it may be an inappropriate fairuse rationale, but you don't explain why that would be the case. Clearly it's illustrative of the unsubtle techniques used in the campaign to spread this term. JDoorjam Talk 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)- There is no reason to link to a screenshot of a web-site that is only incidentally mentioned in an article about an act of political protest by Dan Savage. The fair use rationale for web-site screenshots is for "identification and critical commentary". There is no critical commentary of that site in the article; merely a mention of its purpose. There isn't even any discussion of the obviously scandalising intent of the image. The image and the text are certainly not necessary to identify this site as the url satisfies that role. Unless I am very mistaken, there is no WP guideline that says links to external web-sites should be accompanied by images of the web-sites. On a less lawyerly note, the image gives undue prominence to a nn site, which appears to me to be a sympathetic instead of a neutral POV. Finally, a point of fact: I didn't remove the image without discussion. You have already found the comment I left on the article's talk page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies: you are right, you did comment (though I said without discussion. But I suppose that's semantics). Please show me a guideline that says that web sites shouldn't be accompanied by images. I agree that there's more to be said about the image — why not work on expanding those things you just pointed out? There are sources out there discussing the site; help me find good sources to talk about the points you've raised in a neutral, referenced way. JDoorjam Talk 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline that says web sites shouldn't be accompanied by images is Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Powers T 13:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find the word "web" anywhere on that page, Lt; where exactly do you mean? JDoorjam Talk 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair Use criterion number 8, primarily. The article Santorum (sexual slang) doesn't "contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)" and appears to "serve a purely decorative purpose." Yes, the web site is described in the article, but it's incidental to the subject, and the splash screen doesn't show any useful information. Powers T 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find the word "web" anywhere on that page, Lt; where exactly do you mean? JDoorjam Talk 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline that says web sites shouldn't be accompanied by images is Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Powers T 13:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies: you are right, you did comment (though I said without discussion. But I suppose that's semantics). Please show me a guideline that says that web sites shouldn't be accompanied by images. I agree that there's more to be said about the image — why not work on expanding those things you just pointed out? There are sources out there discussing the site; help me find good sources to talk about the points you've raised in a neutral, referenced way. JDoorjam Talk 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is no reason to link to a screenshot of a web-site that is only incidentally mentioned in an article about an act of political protest by Dan Savage. The fair use rationale for web-site screenshots is for "identification and critical commentary". There is no critical commentary of that site in the article; merely a mention of its purpose. There isn't even any discussion of the obviously scandalising intent of the image. The image and the text are certainly not necessary to identify this site as the url satisfies that role. Unless I am very mistaken, there is no WP guideline that says links to external web-sites should be accompanied by images of the web-sites. On a less lawyerly note, the image gives undue prominence to a nn site, which appears to me to be a sympathetic instead of a neutral POV. Finally, a point of fact: I didn't remove the image without discussion. You have already found the comment I left on the article's talk page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - a screenshot of the website might be appropriate as fair use ... but this is just artwork from their splash screen. The reason we use a screenshot from a website is in order to identify the website or because the image provides some kind of context for discussing the website. I don't see how this image does either - it's artwork. I would suggest, if you, or other editors of this article, believe that it would be helpful to have a screenshot for identification purposes, that you take an actual screenshot of the main page. BigDT 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is an actual screenshot of the main page. That's all there is on the main page. Look for yourself. I just cut out the IE window. Nowhere does the fair use policy say that screenshots of web sites must contain the browser in which the page was viewed — see the screenshot for the Slashdot article. JDoorjam Talk 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a screenshot of the splash screen ... not the main page. This [1] is the main page. If a screenshot were appropriate (which I am persuaded by the above discussion that it is not), this would be the page to use for a screenshot. I can't imagine many circumstances where displaying splash screen artwork would be appropriate. BigDT 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you supply quotations of the policies that you're referring to when making these assertions? JDoorjam Talk 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a policy that says, "don't take a screenshot of a splash screen to use for the artwork and claim that it is a web screenshot", well, for WP:BEANS reasons, you're probably not going to find it. Template:Web-screenshot says that a screenshot of a website can be used for identification and critical commentary. You are not offering commentary on the image and the splash screen doesn't really identify the page. If, 20 years from now, that website no longer exists, seeing its splash screen isn't going to tell me anything about what was on it. Seeing the main page, on the other hand, would. As far as I can tell, the use of this image as opposed to the main page is preferred because it provides artwork to illustrate the ... umm ... substance. That isn't fair use. BigDT 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you supply quotations of the policies that you're referring to when making these assertions? JDoorjam Talk 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a screenshot of the splash screen ... not the main page. This [1] is the main page. If a screenshot were appropriate (which I am persuaded by the above discussion that it is not), this would be the page to use for a screenshot. I can't imagine many circumstances where displaying splash screen artwork would be appropriate. BigDT 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is an actual screenshot of the main page. That's all there is on the main page. Look for yourself. I just cut out the IE window. Nowhere does the fair use policy say that screenshots of web sites must contain the browser in which the page was viewed — see the screenshot for the Slashdot article. JDoorjam Talk 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article does discuss the web site. In fact, there's an entire paragraph dedicated to its use in Google-bombing techniques to popularize the term "santorum". It's completely appropriate in that context, and is only an orphan image because you removed it
- Keep. The owners of this website would most likely have absolutely no complaints about the image being used in the wikipedia article. Furthermore, the image contains the first known online definition of the word, so it is definately relevant in a historical context.
- Keep. That splash screen is the primary vehicle defining the word under discussion. It is the most relevant screenshot from the site to the WP article contents. SchmuckyTheCat 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not deleted. I'd never heard the term before, and when reading the article that gives a description of the splash page, I found it very helpful to have the image to reference. Given that the splash page may not stay there forever, it seems its use in the encyclopedia is warranted. howcheng {chat} 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Blade Hirato (notify | contribs). OB by Image:Neptune.svg - Рэдхот 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by H0tspur (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Scan of copyrighted patch and thus non-free, used as decoration on soon-to-be-deleted biographical article BigDT 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Tate modern (notify | contribs). OR, screenshot of a copyrighted game BigDT 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaded by Qpwoeiru (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) tagged as PD-self, source is www.gdf.it BigDT 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)