Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 May 10
2010 May 12 >

11 May 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Triangle-gold.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:Triangle-grey.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hasty and erroneous speedy deletion of SVG vector files under F4. The GIF versions, File:Triangle-gold.gif and File:Triangle-grey.gif, remain up, and each contains the necessary licensing (released into public domain). Please restore ASAP as these are being used in multiple articles. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first, and making such a request along with providing a proper source for the images would almost certainly have been sufficient. Was there some special reason why you chose not to do that? Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time I've ever requested a deletion review. I did send notices to both the deleting admin and the person who placed the deletion tags on. Pardon my n00biness. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to selectively follow the instructions on how to list a DRV but can't, don't, or won't follow any of the three separate appearances of the request to discuss with the deleting admin first :) Anyhow, restore and fix the licensing. (And BTW, the image was tagged for over a week, so it was hadly a hasty action.) Stifle ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and clarify licensing, snowball if the trend fits. Don't worry about Stifle, he chews on the newbies a bit, but he's usually nice enough not to bite down. :) Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The deletions were neither out of process nor erroneous. You were warned that if you did not provide licensing information within 7 days of being notified, the files would be deleted. Because you failed to provide that information on time, the files were deleted. If you feel the files are still needed, feel free to re-upload them. WP:DR is not the correct venue for something like this. - FASTILYsock (TALK) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Wrong. I was not the one who was informed, because I didn't post the pictures. I was someone who simply came across a red link one day for a picture that was being used in several articles and requested that it be restored. There was no warning on the pages the picture was being used as is the usual protocol when proposing images for deletion. As such, there is no way I could have the picture in question. Remember what happens when people assume things. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I (very broadly) agree with the result of "no consensus" – but WP:FFD clearly states, "Files that have been listed [...] for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." The result of "no consensus" should, therefore, be an impossible result for an FfD discussion: or rather, where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image.

However, when I asked the deleting admin, they said that they "closed the discussion as no consensus, defaulting to keep," which is, in my view, in appropriate, particularly given that a copyright/ NFC issue is involved, and none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 08:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment WP:DPR#FFD provides "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". This seems to conflict with the statement quoted above at WP:FFD. Surely this has come up before? For what it's worth, "no consensus defaults to delete" seems more appropriate for FFDs. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to both of the above comments: That is somewhat of a conflict. My understanding of the policy is that no discussion at all defaults to delete (see item 8 of WP:DPR#FFD), but a discussion that fails to reach a consensus defaults to keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Alter to No Consensus, defaulting to DeleteSee below With no consensus the closing admin should have deleted. Didn't meet WP:NFCC the first time and still doesn't. If there isn't consensus that a non-free image passes NFC then the default must be delete - NFC is very clear about that. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak overturn to no consensus, defaulting to delete. I'm a bit equivocal on this one. On the one hand, while Treasury Tag correctly quotes the policy when he says "eligible for deletion", I would interpret that as a call for admin discretion. I do not agree with Treasury Tag when he goes on to say that "the presumption is to delete the image". I think that if that was what WP:FFD was intended to mean, then that is what WP:FFD would say. So I see that aspect of the decision we are considering as a legitimate matter of admin discretion. But on the other hand, I think Black Kite raises a more substantial point with WP:NFCC. NFCC is strongly-worded and taken very seriously, and that is as it should be. This argues for "overturn to delete". In the closer's defence, only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate, and 82.7.X.X did not specifically reference NFCC, but on balance I do think the closer (as an admin) ought to have recognised the remark as a matter of NFCC regardless and applied the policy accordingly.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Just to say, I fully accept S-Marshall's point where he disagrees with me; on reflection, his interpretation appears to be both sensible and fair. I also think he puts the case for defaulting to deletion in this particular situation very well. ╟─ Treasury Tag► senator─╢ 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for those kind words, TT.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    I also agree with most of your points, but there is a factual error in your remark that "only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate". The nominator also raised the issue and I responded to it quoting points raised. So, there were actually three of us in the original debate who addressed NFCC. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I do see that. I think 82.7.X.X's remark referred to it most clearly, and I also think it would have been better to link to the policy you were talking about. (I do feel we need to do more of this on Wikipedia because otherwise new editors will find our labyrinthine maze of policies even more completely impossible to make sense of, and also in the closer's defence, he isn't a mindreader.) But I accept that others do also seem to have had NFCC in mind and that while they did not explicitly reference that policy, the closer might have been expected to understand their remarks in that light.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as closing administrator, per my reply to TreasuryTag here. To reiterate, I'm a user with deletionist views, but applying WP:NFCC#8 is very much to at any user's discretion. I did not weigh the delete votes any heavier than the keep votes when both adequately addressed the non-free content criteria policy, which is why I closed the discussion as no consensus and defaulting to keep. As HairyWombat pointed out above, how I interpreted the discussion differs from TreasuryTag's interpretation of "substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria"—point eight of the NFCC policy has long been open to debate from my near three-year experiences here, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. I also agree with the points further above stating that the text at WP:FFD contradicts the WP:DPR#FFD guideline and should be addressed after this discussion, as to not sway consensus should it be done during the DRV. — ξ xplicit 19:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse with Comments - Generally, I understand the reasoning behind the NFC policy and the fact that it's to minimize complications with the potential free distribution of the articles here. However, this seems to be one of four related nominated, the other 3 on May 2, for FFD by the same editor that have seen its enforcement poorly executed.
    • Looking at NFC, ideally some aspects of it can be addressed in a straightforward manner by tagging the image, tagging where it is use, and informing the uploader. In fact, the maintenance tags for improper or no FUR, no Licensing, no sourcing, and replaceability all have a template call provided to add to where the image is in use. That speaks volumes to the intent of the process there - give the editor(s) a week to fix the problems, if possible, or the image goes away, normally by 'bot.
    • Since the crux here is NFCC 8, it would seem the ideal way for such an issue to be dealt with is to stick with the article level.
      • You feel the image violates point 8 - remove it from the article, give a short explanation in the edit summary, and maybe a bit longer one on the article's talk page. Don't turn around and compound the issue with an FFD (more on this in a bit). Since point 8 is a bit open to interpretation, the editor or editors that have to show there is a reason or consensus opinion that the image meets point 8 to put it back. The key there is that there needs to be a consensus to keep - just like a BLP deletion needs a solid ref to re-add.
      • If the consensus at the article is to keep it and you still feel the image violates point 8, then go to FFD. But the image should not be removed - again the FFD template has a template call to add to the image caption announcing that it is under consideration for deletion. Deleting the image and FFDing it creates two problems:
        1. Factually inaccurate iVotes. This happened with the other 3 images nominated on May 2 with editors commenting "Delete - Not used any way," apparently not realizing that the editor that nominated the image also deliberately orphaned it at the same time.
        2. Fait Accompli deletions. The XFD process should take no more than 7 days. Should. At times though it doesn't. Right now there is at least one 'bot that automatically purges the orphaned categories starting 0:00:00 UTC. And there is another that runs regularly to check the FFD for still open cases with deleted files. If and FFD is still going, for what ever reason, this combination moots any comments or growing consensus. This is also something that almost happened with this image - it was deleted as orphaned before the FFD was closed ( 00:01, May 11, 2010) because the nominator insisted on shoring the extension to "tomorrow" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg&diff=361228869&oldid=361228685 and [1] and not these were in response to [2] which gave the FFD 6 extra days instead of one, if that).
      If the image has gotten to an FFD, it should be assumed that there is some reason why it was not just removed from the article outright. It could be a consensus of the editors working on the article, it could be that the nominating editor is not sure it's explicitly yankable, or it could be any other reason. But once at FFD, the "No consensus" close is a keep but open to a sooner but not immediate re-list.
    • I'm also not too keen on the the tone used on the file's talk page. At best, half of it is unhelpful.
    • Also a few of the nominators comments in this file's FFD and the others are also less than helpful.
      • "JUSTAVOTE" is a little bit goading from the perspective of an editor. And darn near insulting to potential closing admins.
      • "Clear WP:ILIKEIT violation." is more than a little inflammatory. Last I checked, "ILIKIT" arguments aren't forbidden, but should be taken for what they are. And in this case the comment it was directed at doesn't meet the "ILIKEIT" type of iVote.
      • And there are a few leaps in logic at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who Flesh and Stone.jpg:
        • The nominator comparing the use of similar image for a similar function - a visual reference of "This is the episode being covered by this article" - to that of File:Adipose.jpg in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). And the nominator notes "...that has an image which illustrates a first-time-ever-used-on-TV method of animation." I'd agree with that reasoning - if the image were at that section of the article instead of in the infobox. It's in the infobox to clarify "This episode".
        • And when it was observed that "And frankly, looking at these noms, it looks like the FfD cudgel can and will be used to prevent any image from being added." the response was "Not at all, there are countless Doctor Who articles with images." I really have to wonder especially since, when the nominate deleted the image from use he left this edit summary since it mirrors the edit summary used when he nominated and deleted the previous image - Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who - Flesh And Stone.jpg.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Small addendum - I had seen this this morning and had intended to drop the above prior to finding HairyWombat's comment at my talk page BK. - J Greb ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure Should've been an obvious keep. The only arguments for deleting it is that it isn't necessary for the article, not that it violated any copyright laws. The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead, which makes absolutely no sense at all. All episode articles should have a picture from that episode, not some random unrelated image that only confuses people. And if the episode is called Time of Angels, then you need a picture of the angel transforming in time. Dream Focus 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    "The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead," – this is an absolute lie. I never suggested anything so ridiculous! Furthermore, DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. (And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the context of the issue, unsurprising if you think that the picture showed "the angel transforming in time"...) Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, misread that. Someone else mentioned the classical painting thing in the AFD and the files discription [3]. Your comment was "Can easily be replaced by free content (words: a grainy translucent stone angel standing in front of a television set)". That's even more lame. If someone made some free content like that, it'd probably look rather crappy, and those who saw it would think it was from the show, and thus think negatively of the visual effects, they less likely to watch the episode. Someone who saw the episode mentioned it shows the emergence of the angel. The time that the angel emerged, and the episode is called Time of the Angels. The show is about a time traveler moving around and having adventures. Never mind. My attempt to have an amusing play on words seems to have failed. There was no copyright violation, this counting as fair usage, and no reason not to have an image for the episode article. Dream Focus 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. WP:DPR#FFD is quite clear. In fact, it should have been keep, if anything. It is commonly accepted to show a screenshot for an episode. Text can always be used to describe a copyrighted image, but the effect simply is not the same. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. Visual media should be illustrated and not merely described in words. The entire point of the visual arts is to visually convey impressions and emotions, by means of artistic expression, that cannot be adequately presented in written form. An article about architecture, drama, painting, or dance would be expected to have a suitable image, and the same is true of television. To (loosely) quote from the episode being illustrated "Where are the pictures? Why are there no pictures?" The nominator's own comments in the deletion discussion expressed his opinion that Wikipedia's text should not be emotional. So, how should the emotional impact of a visual medium be expressed to a Wikipedia reader? In an image, obviously. The image of the angel shows it coming into existence with terrifying fangs exposed in a hideously opened mouth, talons on tense fingers raised on outstretched arms, with an eeire electronic glow. This description cannot be expressed adequately in writing because it would contain writer's opinon and emotion that the nominator says Wikipedia shouldn't have. So, let's keep the image because, clearly, it provides emotional context and visual impact that cannot be expressed in text. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► constabulary─╢ 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Your closing statement of the purpose of this DRV is that "none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria." I am responding to that statement by pointing out in fuller detail that there indeed was such an argument presented, despite your claim to the contrary. The closer specifically referred to my comments as persuasive in the closing, and so your statement is incorrect. If you did not intend for this DRV to address that issue, then why did you raise it at the outset of this DRV? What specifically about the closure did you have a problem with, and how much of your reasoning at the top of this DRV is superfluous to that concern? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete. If the result of the debate had properly been no-consensus after a discussion, it would default to keep, but it was not. The closer should have discounted all the keep arguments (except perhaps that of magnius) as not based in policy, leading to a consensus to delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    In what way is HairyWombat's argument invalid? What we care about in the article is "what this Angel looks like" (emphasis original), because it significantly adds to the reader's understanding. (To dispute this point would be to dispute all the precedent we have with all episodes getting a screenshot. If you think all this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, then make a proposal to eliminate all those screenshots.) We might as well show two pictures of the Gateway Arch to illustrate McDonald's logo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    "A picture is worth a thousand words" is a proof by assertion and is meaningless. The fact that the image is discussed in the article is necessary but not sufficient; WP:NFCC requires that the image also be irreplaceable by free content (in this case the textual description) and that it significantly improves readers' understanding of the article. Stifle ( talk) 07:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete per Stifle, that being said, my understanding has always been that FFD defaults to delete if NFCC cannot be proven, this is not a question of guideline or even consensus, it's a legal implication on the foundation. That's why WP:NFCC is classified as such a policy. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist because there's a lot of confusion here. Let's make it clear; the FFD shouldn't be deciding whether an episode article should have a screenshot - there's every possibility that one could be found that passes WP:NFCC. Secondly, the FFD shouldn't be considering whether the image might ever pass WP:NFCC under any circumstance; it possibly might. The only thing it shuold be considering is whether this image passes WP:NFCC when positioned in this particular article - and the answer is no - it doesn't. It's just an image of a Weeping Angel which doesn't convey anything to the casual reader that couldn't be transmitted by text. There may well be a screenshot that exists which does pass all the criteria - and if so that's fine. But this one doesn't - there's nothing in the image that explains something to the reader which isn't communicable by text. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    I puzzle over how relisting would resolve anything. You write that this image does not pass WP:NFCC. You are entitled to hold this opinion, but others are entitled to disagree. If a closing administrator behaved in the way that you suggest then their decision would inevitably be taken to a new Deletion Review. Which would bring us back to where we are now. HairyWombat ( talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: Deletion discussions, for obvious reasons, default to delete if there is no consensus the NFCC has been shown to have have been passed. However, the arguments for keeping the image are lacking anyway, and so is the rationale for the image (which fails the Doctor Who Manual of Style as well as the NFCC. Sceptre ( talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Wait, what? We have a special manual of style for articles about Dr Who episodes? I've seen some truly silly things on Wikipedia, but this scales new heights.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WikiProjects commonly have manuals of styles for articles under their scope. The contents are built over long-time consensus and practice. Sceptre ( talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close, and it appears FfD discussions default to keep in such cases. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The only way to interpret policy is by consensus. In the absence of consensus, we take no action, and that includes deletion of images. NFCC is a strict requirement, but we expect that participants in the discussion will take that into account, and the relevant consensus is whether the file does or does not meet the strict requirement. The default if there is no agreement. is still to keep if the file is present. Had it been deleted, we would need consensus to restore. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_11&oldid=1150995235"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 May 10
2010 May 12 >

11 May 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Triangle-gold.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:Triangle-grey.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hasty and erroneous speedy deletion of SVG vector files under F4. The GIF versions, File:Triangle-gold.gif and File:Triangle-grey.gif, remain up, and each contains the necessary licensing (released into public domain). Please restore ASAP as these are being used in multiple articles. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first, and making such a request along with providing a proper source for the images would almost certainly have been sufficient. Was there some special reason why you chose not to do that? Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time I've ever requested a deletion review. I did send notices to both the deleting admin and the person who placed the deletion tags on. Pardon my n00biness. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to selectively follow the instructions on how to list a DRV but can't, don't, or won't follow any of the three separate appearances of the request to discuss with the deleting admin first :) Anyhow, restore and fix the licensing. (And BTW, the image was tagged for over a week, so it was hadly a hasty action.) Stifle ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and clarify licensing, snowball if the trend fits. Don't worry about Stifle, he chews on the newbies a bit, but he's usually nice enough not to bite down. :) Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The deletions were neither out of process nor erroneous. You were warned that if you did not provide licensing information within 7 days of being notified, the files would be deleted. Because you failed to provide that information on time, the files were deleted. If you feel the files are still needed, feel free to re-upload them. WP:DR is not the correct venue for something like this. - FASTILYsock (TALK) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Wrong. I was not the one who was informed, because I didn't post the pictures. I was someone who simply came across a red link one day for a picture that was being used in several articles and requested that it be restored. There was no warning on the pages the picture was being used as is the usual protocol when proposing images for deletion. As such, there is no way I could have the picture in question. Remember what happens when people assume things. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I (very broadly) agree with the result of "no consensus" – but WP:FFD clearly states, "Files that have been listed [...] for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." The result of "no consensus" should, therefore, be an impossible result for an FfD discussion: or rather, where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image.

However, when I asked the deleting admin, they said that they "closed the discussion as no consensus, defaulting to keep," which is, in my view, in appropriate, particularly given that a copyright/ NFC issue is involved, and none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 08:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment WP:DPR#FFD provides "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". This seems to conflict with the statement quoted above at WP:FFD. Surely this has come up before? For what it's worth, "no consensus defaults to delete" seems more appropriate for FFDs. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to both of the above comments: That is somewhat of a conflict. My understanding of the policy is that no discussion at all defaults to delete (see item 8 of WP:DPR#FFD), but a discussion that fails to reach a consensus defaults to keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Alter to No Consensus, defaulting to DeleteSee below With no consensus the closing admin should have deleted. Didn't meet WP:NFCC the first time and still doesn't. If there isn't consensus that a non-free image passes NFC then the default must be delete - NFC is very clear about that. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak overturn to no consensus, defaulting to delete. I'm a bit equivocal on this one. On the one hand, while Treasury Tag correctly quotes the policy when he says "eligible for deletion", I would interpret that as a call for admin discretion. I do not agree with Treasury Tag when he goes on to say that "the presumption is to delete the image". I think that if that was what WP:FFD was intended to mean, then that is what WP:FFD would say. So I see that aspect of the decision we are considering as a legitimate matter of admin discretion. But on the other hand, I think Black Kite raises a more substantial point with WP:NFCC. NFCC is strongly-worded and taken very seriously, and that is as it should be. This argues for "overturn to delete". In the closer's defence, only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate, and 82.7.X.X did not specifically reference NFCC, but on balance I do think the closer (as an admin) ought to have recognised the remark as a matter of NFCC regardless and applied the policy accordingly.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Just to say, I fully accept S-Marshall's point where he disagrees with me; on reflection, his interpretation appears to be both sensible and fair. I also think he puts the case for defaulting to deletion in this particular situation very well. ╟─ Treasury Tag► senator─╢ 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for those kind words, TT.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    I also agree with most of your points, but there is a factual error in your remark that "only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate". The nominator also raised the issue and I responded to it quoting points raised. So, there were actually three of us in the original debate who addressed NFCC. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I do see that. I think 82.7.X.X's remark referred to it most clearly, and I also think it would have been better to link to the policy you were talking about. (I do feel we need to do more of this on Wikipedia because otherwise new editors will find our labyrinthine maze of policies even more completely impossible to make sense of, and also in the closer's defence, he isn't a mindreader.) But I accept that others do also seem to have had NFCC in mind and that while they did not explicitly reference that policy, the closer might have been expected to understand their remarks in that light.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as closing administrator, per my reply to TreasuryTag here. To reiterate, I'm a user with deletionist views, but applying WP:NFCC#8 is very much to at any user's discretion. I did not weigh the delete votes any heavier than the keep votes when both adequately addressed the non-free content criteria policy, which is why I closed the discussion as no consensus and defaulting to keep. As HairyWombat pointed out above, how I interpreted the discussion differs from TreasuryTag's interpretation of "substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria"—point eight of the NFCC policy has long been open to debate from my near three-year experiences here, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. I also agree with the points further above stating that the text at WP:FFD contradicts the WP:DPR#FFD guideline and should be addressed after this discussion, as to not sway consensus should it be done during the DRV. — ξ xplicit 19:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse with Comments - Generally, I understand the reasoning behind the NFC policy and the fact that it's to minimize complications with the potential free distribution of the articles here. However, this seems to be one of four related nominated, the other 3 on May 2, for FFD by the same editor that have seen its enforcement poorly executed.
    • Looking at NFC, ideally some aspects of it can be addressed in a straightforward manner by tagging the image, tagging where it is use, and informing the uploader. In fact, the maintenance tags for improper or no FUR, no Licensing, no sourcing, and replaceability all have a template call provided to add to where the image is in use. That speaks volumes to the intent of the process there - give the editor(s) a week to fix the problems, if possible, or the image goes away, normally by 'bot.
    • Since the crux here is NFCC 8, it would seem the ideal way for such an issue to be dealt with is to stick with the article level.
      • You feel the image violates point 8 - remove it from the article, give a short explanation in the edit summary, and maybe a bit longer one on the article's talk page. Don't turn around and compound the issue with an FFD (more on this in a bit). Since point 8 is a bit open to interpretation, the editor or editors that have to show there is a reason or consensus opinion that the image meets point 8 to put it back. The key there is that there needs to be a consensus to keep - just like a BLP deletion needs a solid ref to re-add.
      • If the consensus at the article is to keep it and you still feel the image violates point 8, then go to FFD. But the image should not be removed - again the FFD template has a template call to add to the image caption announcing that it is under consideration for deletion. Deleting the image and FFDing it creates two problems:
        1. Factually inaccurate iVotes. This happened with the other 3 images nominated on May 2 with editors commenting "Delete - Not used any way," apparently not realizing that the editor that nominated the image also deliberately orphaned it at the same time.
        2. Fait Accompli deletions. The XFD process should take no more than 7 days. Should. At times though it doesn't. Right now there is at least one 'bot that automatically purges the orphaned categories starting 0:00:00 UTC. And there is another that runs regularly to check the FFD for still open cases with deleted files. If and FFD is still going, for what ever reason, this combination moots any comments or growing consensus. This is also something that almost happened with this image - it was deleted as orphaned before the FFD was closed ( 00:01, May 11, 2010) because the nominator insisted on shoring the extension to "tomorrow" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg&diff=361228869&oldid=361228685 and [1] and not these were in response to [2] which gave the FFD 6 extra days instead of one, if that).
      If the image has gotten to an FFD, it should be assumed that there is some reason why it was not just removed from the article outright. It could be a consensus of the editors working on the article, it could be that the nominating editor is not sure it's explicitly yankable, or it could be any other reason. But once at FFD, the "No consensus" close is a keep but open to a sooner but not immediate re-list.
    • I'm also not too keen on the the tone used on the file's talk page. At best, half of it is unhelpful.
    • Also a few of the nominators comments in this file's FFD and the others are also less than helpful.
      • "JUSTAVOTE" is a little bit goading from the perspective of an editor. And darn near insulting to potential closing admins.
      • "Clear WP:ILIKEIT violation." is more than a little inflammatory. Last I checked, "ILIKIT" arguments aren't forbidden, but should be taken for what they are. And in this case the comment it was directed at doesn't meet the "ILIKEIT" type of iVote.
      • And there are a few leaps in logic at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who Flesh and Stone.jpg:
        • The nominator comparing the use of similar image for a similar function - a visual reference of "This is the episode being covered by this article" - to that of File:Adipose.jpg in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). And the nominator notes "...that has an image which illustrates a first-time-ever-used-on-TV method of animation." I'd agree with that reasoning - if the image were at that section of the article instead of in the infobox. It's in the infobox to clarify "This episode".
        • And when it was observed that "And frankly, looking at these noms, it looks like the FfD cudgel can and will be used to prevent any image from being added." the response was "Not at all, there are countless Doctor Who articles with images." I really have to wonder especially since, when the nominate deleted the image from use he left this edit summary since it mirrors the edit summary used when he nominated and deleted the previous image - Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who - Flesh And Stone.jpg.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Small addendum - I had seen this this morning and had intended to drop the above prior to finding HairyWombat's comment at my talk page BK. - J Greb ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure Should've been an obvious keep. The only arguments for deleting it is that it isn't necessary for the article, not that it violated any copyright laws. The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead, which makes absolutely no sense at all. All episode articles should have a picture from that episode, not some random unrelated image that only confuses people. And if the episode is called Time of Angels, then you need a picture of the angel transforming in time. Dream Focus 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    "The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead," – this is an absolute lie. I never suggested anything so ridiculous! Furthermore, DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. (And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the context of the issue, unsurprising if you think that the picture showed "the angel transforming in time"...) Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, misread that. Someone else mentioned the classical painting thing in the AFD and the files discription [3]. Your comment was "Can easily be replaced by free content (words: a grainy translucent stone angel standing in front of a television set)". That's even more lame. If someone made some free content like that, it'd probably look rather crappy, and those who saw it would think it was from the show, and thus think negatively of the visual effects, they less likely to watch the episode. Someone who saw the episode mentioned it shows the emergence of the angel. The time that the angel emerged, and the episode is called Time of the Angels. The show is about a time traveler moving around and having adventures. Never mind. My attempt to have an amusing play on words seems to have failed. There was no copyright violation, this counting as fair usage, and no reason not to have an image for the episode article. Dream Focus 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. WP:DPR#FFD is quite clear. In fact, it should have been keep, if anything. It is commonly accepted to show a screenshot for an episode. Text can always be used to describe a copyrighted image, but the effect simply is not the same. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. Visual media should be illustrated and not merely described in words. The entire point of the visual arts is to visually convey impressions and emotions, by means of artistic expression, that cannot be adequately presented in written form. An article about architecture, drama, painting, or dance would be expected to have a suitable image, and the same is true of television. To (loosely) quote from the episode being illustrated "Where are the pictures? Why are there no pictures?" The nominator's own comments in the deletion discussion expressed his opinion that Wikipedia's text should not be emotional. So, how should the emotional impact of a visual medium be expressed to a Wikipedia reader? In an image, obviously. The image of the angel shows it coming into existence with terrifying fangs exposed in a hideously opened mouth, talons on tense fingers raised on outstretched arms, with an eeire electronic glow. This description cannot be expressed adequately in writing because it would contain writer's opinon and emotion that the nominator says Wikipedia shouldn't have. So, let's keep the image because, clearly, it provides emotional context and visual impact that cannot be expressed in text. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► constabulary─╢ 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Your closing statement of the purpose of this DRV is that "none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria." I am responding to that statement by pointing out in fuller detail that there indeed was such an argument presented, despite your claim to the contrary. The closer specifically referred to my comments as persuasive in the closing, and so your statement is incorrect. If you did not intend for this DRV to address that issue, then why did you raise it at the outset of this DRV? What specifically about the closure did you have a problem with, and how much of your reasoning at the top of this DRV is superfluous to that concern? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete. If the result of the debate had properly been no-consensus after a discussion, it would default to keep, but it was not. The closer should have discounted all the keep arguments (except perhaps that of magnius) as not based in policy, leading to a consensus to delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    In what way is HairyWombat's argument invalid? What we care about in the article is "what this Angel looks like" (emphasis original), because it significantly adds to the reader's understanding. (To dispute this point would be to dispute all the precedent we have with all episodes getting a screenshot. If you think all this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, then make a proposal to eliminate all those screenshots.) We might as well show two pictures of the Gateway Arch to illustrate McDonald's logo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    "A picture is worth a thousand words" is a proof by assertion and is meaningless. The fact that the image is discussed in the article is necessary but not sufficient; WP:NFCC requires that the image also be irreplaceable by free content (in this case the textual description) and that it significantly improves readers' understanding of the article. Stifle ( talk) 07:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete per Stifle, that being said, my understanding has always been that FFD defaults to delete if NFCC cannot be proven, this is not a question of guideline or even consensus, it's a legal implication on the foundation. That's why WP:NFCC is classified as such a policy. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist because there's a lot of confusion here. Let's make it clear; the FFD shouldn't be deciding whether an episode article should have a screenshot - there's every possibility that one could be found that passes WP:NFCC. Secondly, the FFD shouldn't be considering whether the image might ever pass WP:NFCC under any circumstance; it possibly might. The only thing it shuold be considering is whether this image passes WP:NFCC when positioned in this particular article - and the answer is no - it doesn't. It's just an image of a Weeping Angel which doesn't convey anything to the casual reader that couldn't be transmitted by text. There may well be a screenshot that exists which does pass all the criteria - and if so that's fine. But this one doesn't - there's nothing in the image that explains something to the reader which isn't communicable by text. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    I puzzle over how relisting would resolve anything. You write that this image does not pass WP:NFCC. You are entitled to hold this opinion, but others are entitled to disagree. If a closing administrator behaved in the way that you suggest then their decision would inevitably be taken to a new Deletion Review. Which would bring us back to where we are now. HairyWombat ( talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: Deletion discussions, for obvious reasons, default to delete if there is no consensus the NFCC has been shown to have have been passed. However, the arguments for keeping the image are lacking anyway, and so is the rationale for the image (which fails the Doctor Who Manual of Style as well as the NFCC. Sceptre ( talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Wait, what? We have a special manual of style for articles about Dr Who episodes? I've seen some truly silly things on Wikipedia, but this scales new heights.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WikiProjects commonly have manuals of styles for articles under their scope. The contents are built over long-time consensus and practice. Sceptre ( talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close, and it appears FfD discussions default to keep in such cases. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The only way to interpret policy is by consensus. In the absence of consensus, we take no action, and that includes deletion of images. NFCC is a strict requirement, but we expect that participants in the discussion will take that into account, and the relevant consensus is whether the file does or does not meet the strict requirement. The default if there is no agreement. is still to keep if the file is present. Had it been deleted, we would need consensus to restore. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_11&oldid=1150995235"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE