Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif

Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kalaripayatt (notify | contribs).

Watermarked image. Not allowed per WP:IUP KNM ^Talk 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only watermarking that harms free redistribution is disallowed by the WP:IUP. This animated GIF is PD, so the offending frames (a second of something that I can't read) could just be removed instead of deleting the image. I don't see how there is a problem with freely redistributing this image. Kusma (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:IUP only speaks of watermarks not being allowed on user-created images. I quote "user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use" (emphasis added). This is not a user-created image, hence policy doesn't prohibit the watermark, hence there's no ground made out for deletion. Anyone who thinks the watermark is ugly, is free to edit the image to remove it. -- Arvind 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF? An animated gif with a watermark? Come on, guys! This is an encyclopaedia! Guy (Help!) 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine, I've removed the watermarks, and as of 23:27 UTC, the image isn't watermarked any longer. Are there any other problems with it, or can we close this discussion? -- Arvind 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it isnt watermarked, it can probably stay, though I am sure some would still be concerned about its encyclopedicity (of a gif animation i.e.,). Having said that, it should also be pointed out that this pic has been deleted more than once in the past and it is perfectly justifiable that it was tagged for speedy deletion and then brought here. Also, fact of the matter is, regardless of what the policy says, I have myself seen several watermarked pics get speedied. I have tagged several of them myself and they have all been speedied by different admins. The point being raised(that watermarsk are a no-no only on user-created pics) is however, probably worthy of raising on WP:AN or WP:PUMP. I personally find that "user-created" clause rather odd. An image is an image. A free image is a free image. If the creator happens to have registered on one of the 8 billion or so sites, it should be seen only as happy coincidence and nothing else. Sarvagnya 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rhe picture's deletion in the past had nothing to do with the watermark, as its deletion log reveals - it was purely a result of OTRS permission not being provided, and the picture was restored when OTRS consent was received. FWIW, it doesn't have a watermark now, and didn't when you voted. I agree that it's not a particularly attractive picture, but an animation shows how Kalaripayattu really works in a way still pictures do not, so I'd say it's an acceptable placeholder until someone uploads a video.

On the more general point, the logic seems to me to be that if third-party content uploaded under a free license has a watermark, the appropriate response is to edit the picture to remove the watermark rather than delete it; and since third-party content uploaded under a non-free license is usually uploaded on the basis that it isn't replaceable, watermarks have to be tolerated. -- Arvind 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.. if i remember correctly, this pic has also been deleted before because it had a watermark. Only, I believe it was under a different name then. In fact, if memory serves me right, this pic has been uploaded before under 3-4 different names. Sarvagnya 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had indeed been deleted as Image:Jasmine-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif. However, that deletion was also about the image's copyright status. The copyright status has since been cleared up, so there is no reason to take previous deletions into account when debating this image -- the only thing we should be discussing is the image's content and encyclopedic usefulness. Does it add useful information to the articles about Indian martial arts? If it does, we should keep it. Kusma (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMage kept. -Nv8200p talk 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Korea-overview2.1.GIF

Image:Korea-overview2.1.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Parsecboy (notify | contribs).

Image is POV and it should be at least modified: (1) North Koreans are called as "enemies", (2) colors are pretentious in favor of South Korea millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the color is particularly pretentious or favors one side over the other. I can alter the caption to remove "enemy". I didn't write the captions myself, I merely altered/cleaned up an image that was already in existence. There's no really good reason to delete this image. Parsecboy 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, please make text according to NPOV. About colors: If you are using dark gray for South Korean territories gained during the war, please use yellow color for North Korean territories during the war. If you want to give an accent to differences between contemporary border and gained territories, you should do it in both cases. Maybe it is better to organize image(s) like this one for example? With leaving comments out of image. Also, note that theoretically you need sources for claims and that it is not possible to put them inside of GIF. Also, please, consider usage of SVG if it is possible. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to do the entire war on one single map; there's too much back and forth to show it coherently in a static image. Like I said, I just cleaned up an existing image, I didn't create it myself. Actually, I just noticed that it's no longer being used in the Korean War article. It's no big deal to me if the image is deleted altogether. No use in it sitting around collecting dust. Parsecboy 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Colors are different at the original image (light gray is used for the first phase, too). Also, thank you for repeating that you based your image on another because this one is POV, too. It is good as a presentation how sides in conflict was showing war, but it is not neutral (but I don't want to work on that POV example; actually I didn't want to work on this one...). As it seems that you are interested in this issue, may you organize (not necessarily in one image) those images a little bit more according to NPOV? I am not interested in Korean War and I was thinking that there is one-image-problem. However, it looks more like a systematic problem (related to Korean War) and I don't want to spend more time on this issue. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see from the original image, I did try to make it a more NPOV, given that the original displays prominently the furthest advance of UN forces and marginalizes the advances of the DPRK and China. I just changed it from the lighter green-gray to the darker color to standardize the colors. Again, the image is no longer being used by any article. As the creator of the image, to whomever makes the decision to delete or keep, I say go ahead and delete it. Parsecboy 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chris_Wooden.png

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wooden Core desat 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CDR_Doug_Denneny_with_the_VF-2_Bounty_Hunters_and_one_of_their_10_F-14D_Tomcats_aboard_the_USS_CONSTELLATION_in_2003.JPG

Image:CDR_Doug_Denneny_with_the_VF-2_Bounty_Hunters_and_one_of_their_10_F-14D_Tomcats_aboard_the_USS_CONSTELLATION_in_2003.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamesmoor (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, used in a constantly-vandalized fluff article that was deleted Core desat 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mo_Woye_Fat_Kung_Fu.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, article deleted in AFD Core desat 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DrRockCaptFantasyPlaque.JPG

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, potential Copyright violation Core desat 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DrRock&CaptFantasyLive.JPG

Image:DrRock&CaptFantasyLive.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saverivers (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, potential Copyright violation Core desat 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Close up of bag.jpg

Image:Close up of bag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MattyLeedham (notify | contribs).

Orphan, unencyclopedic, plus privacy concerns. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alan.jpg

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

~~Orphan,~~ unencyclopedic, privacy concerns. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Image is used on user page of somebody other than uploader (User:MatthewDodds) who hasn't edited since Oct 2006, which suggests to me that this image, uploaded only today, was not the image that MatthewDodds was intending to display on his user page. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; no indication of which county road 152 this is meant for. —An gr 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meher baba rolling strone.jpg

Image:Meher baba rolling strone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cott12 (notify | contribs).

Discussion of this issue of Rolling Stone at Pete Townshend is minimal. It does not significantly improve readers' understanding, nor would its removal be detrimental, as required by WP:NFCC#8. —An gr 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:IUP The proposal to delete this image makes no sense and must be to make a point - a violation of Wikipedia policy if that is the case. There is no violation of Wikipedia rules on fair use here. Abronkeeler 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only violation of Wikipedia policy here is the use of this image in Pete Townshend. —An gr 06:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The image has recently been (re-)added to God in a pill?, but there's no significant discussion of this issue there either, so the same argument still applies. WP:NFCC#8 is not met in either article. —An gr 06:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand what the issue with the fair use rationale is or what is being disputed. The magazine imaged and its content are clearly discussed in at least one article and it is significant in proportion to the short length of the article. See Image talk:Meher baba rolling strone.jpg. Cott12 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not discussed at all. The article inside the magazine depicted is mentioned in passing. This image does not contribute significantly to either article where it's used. —An gr 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence does not merit an unfree image that is neither discussed or "greatly expands" the readers understanding of the subject. Megapixie 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Angr and Megapixie. -- RG ² 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:O3 ph5.jpg

Image:O3 ph5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Achidiac (notify | contribs).

Orphan and Unencyclopedic Jreferee t/c 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:586493916 l.jpg

Image:586493916 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Teeth4wolf (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic image depicting nn individual. Muchness 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]