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.
Keep Image does increase the readers understanding of the topic as the section is talking about the alternate logos of the team, the logo is still used. This nom is a WP:POINT argument in that his attempts to strip Calgary Flames of featured status due to non-free images were unsuccessful and consensus was clearly that the images were apropriate. -Djsasso (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep: Quite aside from that the history of a sport's team's logos is quite encyclopedic, and that the non-commercial use of such logos is quite legal, User:Fasach Nua is engaged in forum shopping over this article, claiming it has too many images in it; first through edit warring in the article itself (which went on quite a while before the editor would explain why he was deleting the images) against unanimous consensus, then through filing a featured article review for an article that was the Main Page Featured Article only days before. That was closed within a day, whereupon Fasach filed another FAR that same day, which was speedily closed, at which point Fasach was warned by the closing admin that he was being disruptive and advised to gain consensus for his position in the article's talk page. He has failed to do so, and instead persists with his bad faith WP:POINT violations. RGTraynor 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image is appropriate. The image could use some more text on the Calgary Flames article and the editors have recognized that. Hardly a reason to delete it. Alaney2k (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a WP:POINT violation. This user has been crusading to enforce his opinion of image policy on the Calgary Flames article. So far he has gotten nowhere with an FAR that was speedy closed, created a second literally within minutes after the close of the first, which was deleted, then resorted to edit warring on the article itself. Evidently he is now turning to IfD after his 3RR warning. As far as the image itself goes, it is a team logo and is described in the article. It is quite notable, and easily passes NFCC. Resolute14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another pointy bit courtesy of a POV warrior who has no understanding of the guidelines related to logo use and complete disdain for other editors and their contributions. Wiggy! (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current logo, Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg is used properly for identification. This old logo is not needed for identificaion; its use requires another rationale. The fact that this logo is seven sections away from any comment on it shows that it does not significanly add to readers understanding of the article. —teb728tc02:57, 22 September 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.
Keep Image does increase the readers understanding of the topic as the section is talking about the history of the uniforms of the Calgary Flames. This nom is a WP:POINT argument in that his attempts to strip Calgary Flames of featured status due to non-free images were unsuccessful and consensus was clearly that the images were apropriate. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep: Quite aside from that the history of a sport's team's logos is quite encyclopedic, that the non-commercial use of such logos is quite legal, and that the image itself is non-copyrighted artwork, User:Fasach Nua is engaged in forum shopping over this article, claiming it has too many images in it; first through edit warring in the article itself (which went on quite a while before the editor would explain why he was deleting the images) against unanimous consensus, then through filing a featured article review for an article that was the Main Page Featured Article only days before. That was closed within a day, whereupon Fasach filed another FAR that same day, which was speedily closed, at which point Fasach was warned by the closing admin that he was being disruptive and advised to gain consensus for his position in the article's talk page. He has failed to do so, and instead persists with his bad faith WP:POINT violations. RGTraynor 14:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a WP:POINT violation. This user has been crusading to enforce his opinion of image policy on the Calgary Flames article. So far he has gotten nowhere with an FAR that was speedy closed, created a second literally within minutes after the close of the first, which was deleted, then resorted to edit warring on the article itself. Evidently he is now turning to IfD after his 3RR warning. As far as the image itself goes, it is used as part of a section describing the uniform history of the team. It is quite notable, and easily passes NFCC. Resolute14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The depiction of uniforms is of interest to many persons and is encyclopedic. Image in question is one of a very high quality nature used to depict era of team. Alaney2k (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another pointy bit courtesy of a POV warrior who has no understanding of the guidelines related to logo use and complete disdain for other editors and their contributions. Obsolete and unused? Try historical. Jeez. Wiggy! (talk) 22:36, 11 September 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.
Keep Image does increase the readers understanding of the topic. This nom is a WP:POINT argument in that his attempts to strip Calgary Flames of featured status due to non-free images were unsuccessful and consensus was clearly that the images were appropriate. -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep: Quite aside from that the history of a sport's team's logos is quite encyclopedic, that the non-commercial use of such logos is quite legal, and that user has at every step of the way failed to explain why these images fail the policies he insists they do, User:Fasach Nua is engaged in forum shopping over this article, claiming it has too many images in it; first through edit warring in the article itself (which went on quite a while before the editor would explain why he was deleting the images) against unanimous consensus, then through filing a featured article review for an article that was the Main Page Featured Article only days before. That was closed within a day, whereupon Fasach filed another FAR that same day, which was speedily closed, at which point Fasach was warned by the closing admin that he was being disruptive and advised to gain consensus for his position in the article's talk page. He has failed to do so, and instead persists with his bad faith WP:POINT violations. RGTraynor 14:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a WP:POINT violation. This user has been crusading to enforce his opinion of image policy on the Calgary Flames article. So far he has gotten nowhere with an FAR that was speedy closed, created a second literally within minutes after the close of the first, which was deleted, then resorted to edit warring on the article itself. Evidently he is now turning to IfD after his 3RR warning. As far as the image itself goes, it is used as part of a section describing the uniform history of the team. It is quite notable, and easily passes NFCC. Resolute14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep for now - only image of set proposed that is debatable. Depiction of this logo and the current logo (where differences are minor) is being discussed on Talk page and should not be speedily deleted. A discussion of the unique usage of said logo in different circumstances, i.e., home vs. away appearances may mean this one is kept over the other, and is best handled via the normal revision process. Alaney2k (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another pointy bit courtesy of a POV warrior who has no understanding of the guidelines related to logo use and complete disdain for other editors and their contributions. Keep an eye folks, he'll be at it again. Wiggy! (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current logo, Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg is used properly for identification. This old logo is not needed for identificaion; its use requires another rationale and as a minimum critical commentary. The use of this logo could be replaced with text saying the black outline was added in 1995. This would be perfectly understandable without actually showing the logo. —teb728tc03:02, 22 September 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.
Apparent copyright violation, uploader incapable of following the upload instructions: note that image is simultaneously marked "fair use" and "pd-self" Kww (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of free use and no source discussion on how the photo's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Suntag (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NFCC#8. Non-free rationale does not suffice for the inclusion of image in the article. Citing also Wikipedia:Non free content#Images 2 giving examples of unacceptable use of non-free images: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." Obviously, this is not a case if using the cover to illustrate the person whose photograph is used on the cover, nevertheless, the rigorous requirement for an exception to the general prohibition outlined here (i.e. sourced discussion of the magazine cover) is not met by the nominated image. meco (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 reads "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Do you assert that the inclusion of this images "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic"? __meco (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image's presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic because it illustrates what it means to be "Time Person of the Year" in a way that words cannot. Suntag (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you think the readers will not be able to understand if that picture does not accompany the article? If it's the fact that "Man of the Year" is announced on the cover of Time, surely that is utterly self-evident, and even if it should not be, it certainly would suffice to mention this in the article to ensure readers' full understanding of this? For the use of a copyrighted cover to be admissible there must be some sourced discussion of that image. In this case that does not accompany the image which simply functions to illustrate the article. __meco (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To use this image in the "Time Person of the Year" article, there does not need to be any discussion about Vladimir Putin. The article goes into Time's usage of one of their magazine's covers for Time Person of the Year and the image increase readers' understanding of that. -- Suntag (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there is no issue of Vladimir Putin being discussed in the article or not (noone has asserted that). You state that "[t]he article goes into Time's usage of one of their magazine's covers for Time Person of the Year", using the rather vague term goes into, and perhaps rightly vague since the word cover is mentioned two times only in the article (not counting the image desription), none of which are part of any discussion of the selected image. Such a discussion, is a requirement for allowing the use of a non-free magazine cover, and in addition, the discussion would need to be referenced. The minimal discussion in the article is over Time's "editorial embarrassment earlier [in 1827] for not having aviator Charles Lindbergh on its cover following his historic trans-Atlantic flight" which I don't see in any way meriting this image (or any other Time covers) under an NFC rationale.
As for your last assertion that the image increases readers' understanding of Time's usage of one of their magazine's covers for Time Person of the Year, again, I take it you are referring to the "Lindbergh embarassment". In that context I can not see that a random "Time Person of the Year" cover is going to be of more than marginal help in understanding that incident, certainly in no way enough to be deemed significant or essential and hence justifying invoking Fair Use. __meco (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I have just written may be irrelevant if the cited requirement does not apply to the use of cover art in general but only to the use of cover art when the person on the magazine cover is identical to the subject of the article. Then the provision that applies would be Wikipedia:Non free content#Images #1: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I suppose this provision would suffice for the current usage. However, the rationale given will have to be tweaked to make this clear. Should this be the case, however, I still question whether the significance requirement of NFCC#8 is satisfied. __meco (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is a cover that actually drew some interest for its artistic qualities. Without that sort of commentary, it's more in line with NFCC not to use a nonfree cover image here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A cover that actually drew some interest for its artistic qualities" would be a sub topic to a main topic. Most of the article is about being on the Time Man of the Year cover. Beteween this Time Man of the Year cover and another cover, I agree there might be a Time Man of the Year cover better suited for the article. However, between this cover and no cover, this image's presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. -- Suntag (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the State of Alaska releases it's Governor's official biography photos into the public domain and could not find anything on it. The uploader was asked about this on 31 August 2008, but did not provide an answer. The photo is redundant of several in her Wikipedia article and is not needed even if in the public domain. -- Suntag (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on no source provided. Nominator's assertion that it is unlikely that the image should be in the public domain, however, is untenable as the U.S. government generally releases all images to the public domain. __meco (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Copyright says, "Also, most state and local governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work." I don't know why Alaska would place their work into the public domain and could not find the Alaska law which says they do. Suntag (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be prudent to assume Alaska does not unless someone can come up with a statute or (more likely) a state reg explicitly stating otherwise. RGTraynor 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with SVG version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seo75 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 September 2008
Keep JPG, delete SVG - Fair use images should not be remade to SVGs since SVGs can be scaled to any size, and that breaks the fair use rules. Seo75: I see that you were the one that uploaded the SVG version of the image. I suggest you instead make a smaller, transparent PNG version of the image based on your very nice SVG. Since the current JPG has some ugly artefacts. (If you don't have the tools to make a transparent PNG at home, then simply view your SVG in the proper size here at Wikipedia since MediaWiki renders that as a transparent PNG, then right click on it and save that PNG to your disk.) --David Göthberg (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As near as I can tell, this raster image does not contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic. See the text at Template:ShouldBeSVG. Also, the SVG version is 97 KB and the JPG version is 5 KB. Deleting this image might break the “attribution path” for the new SVG image, which breaks licenses such as the GFDL. I think more reasoning is needed before we break the license. -- Suntag (talk) 15:39, 11 September 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:
- Delete largely as failing NFCC#8. The image adds little that is not covered by the acompanying text and as such fails to significantly add to reader's understanding. Per Suntag's comment the use of so many non-free images, largely of the same thing, goes against NFCC#3a (minimal usage) - Peripitus(Talk)11:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The question is how many images are necessary to show "All of the idents under this theme had a common focus: people in various forms of movement and music with a somewhat upbeat rhythm. Red was also used as the predominant colour in all of the idents." in the BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents article. I think two or three would be sufficient. BBC One 'Balloon' idents only has two. I suggest picking out ten more images from the "BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents" article and add them to this IfD. That would leave three in the article. Suntag (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Suntag. In fact, since there seems to be no referenced discussion of and commentary on these images, I think two or three images is all that should be allowed to remain giving the reader an idea of the variation of this series of idents. Does nominator want to proceed and nominate several more of these? __meco (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article doesn't just set out to establish that "All of the idents under this theme had a common focus: people in various forms of movement and music with a somewhat upbeat rhythm. Red was also used as the predominant colour in all of the idents."
The article seeks to go beyond that, and document the idents themselves in detail - a significant piece of mass culture. Yes, text can say "Ballet dancers in red at the Minack Theatre"; but any number of visual results could have be described that way. Showing the picture establishes exactly what image was achieved. That's useful in itself who people who never saw the idents; but it's perhaps even more useful for people who did see the idents, because it acts as a pwerful jog to the memory, reminding them of their own mental film of the ident, giving them a much sharper mental context, so they will extract meaning more completely and more readily from the accompanying text. Thus the stills do help significantly improve the understanding readers leave the topic with. In my view, they therefore pass WP:NFC.
Let me also add: We're not going to get sued for these images; nor are downstream reusers of our articles; and they can't be replaced by free alternatives. So, per WP:POL we should ask ourselves, what good does it do to trash the article by removing them? Jheald (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What good does it do to trash the article by removing them" is not the standard applied by Wikipedia. As for their usage, even the primary source only uses three images to convey their advertising campaign. Also, there appears to be no third party source unconnected to BBC One that discusses any of these images in particular. -- Suntag (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POL, "what good does it do?" is a standard we should always apply. It goes beyond specific policies.
Compared to the Press Release, it's not surprising we're using a different number of images, because what we're doing has a different purpose. We're not trying to give a before-the-fact teaser introduction to the new station in-vision image; we're trying to give an after-the-fact comprehensive review. Jheald (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for BBC idents being a subject for legitimate encyclopedic interest, a Google News search for "+bbc ident" returns no fewer than 1570 hits, suggesting it is.
Given that interest in the general media, it is legitimate to try to give a comprehensive review of them, as a significant piece of popular culture. And to be comprehensive, it is appropriate to show the whole set.
Per NFCC #8: these images substantially improve the understanding of the topic readers get from the topic. Per NFCC #3: fewer images would not convey the same information. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 11 September 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.
Possibly true. One of them should go, obviously it doesn't matter to me which. I simply nominated the PNG as the GIF has a transparent background, is smaller, and is in use (though only on a userpage). - AWeenieMan (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a replaceable fair use image of a living person as the image is only being used in an article about the author and not the book. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the book is not discussed in the article. Nv8200ptalk19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both images appear to be based on content that is presumably copyright (the cover of the press kit), and redundant to the film's poster shown in the infobox. Jheald (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Doxefazepam.png){kind=link}
