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 discussion was: Deleted. Here is a link to the discussion on the Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treasures in Focus Stamps.jpg Dianna ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:ISBN 9780712309530.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fæ ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Absurd example of fair use. This image of a book cover is used in British Library Philatelic Collections, an article about a stamp museum in the UK. The lower half of the image is the "1913 King George V seahorse master dye proof, part of the Harrison Collection", according to the article text. There are numerous problems with using this image under a claim of fair use. For one thing, if the master dye proof is exhibited in the museum (which I suppose is the whole point of having this image), then it's replaceable. Even if it's not replaceable, there's no conceivable way that it meets NFCC #8 - the cover of a pocket guide to the museum is not essential to understanding the museum. B ( talk) 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I don't know either way on the fair use points, but I agree that the file definitely doesn't meet NFCC#8. Samwalton9 ( talk) 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete I uploaded it to Commons under a new name as the stamp is out of copyright and there are no other copyrightable elements. This version and the rationale may be deleted. Hope that is the correct way of achieving that. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What is a "die proof" (or "dye proof", both spellings are used in the article, I'm assuming only one is right)? If the die/dye proof is a 2d-photo, then it's out of copyright and I suppose you can argue that the book cover is not protected by copyright (though I would dispute that). But if the die/dye proof is 3d, even barely 3d, then it's still copyrighted. The proofs themselves (if they are 3d), if I read everything right were presented to the museum in 1963 and presumably published at that time, so their copyright expires this year. (But we would still need our own photo). -- B ( talk) 13:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Never mind, I answered my own question - Die proof (philately) - it's a 2d object. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/philrar/g/010gb0001913s19u00001002.html has a larger version of the proof. Since it's unquestionably free and actually shows the whole stamp (whereas the book cover is far more questionable), I would suggest using this one and dispensing with the book cover. -- B ( talk) 13:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I have nominated the image on Commons for deletion. Since it is from the UK, Commons requires it to be public domain in both the US and the UK, which is highly unlikely. Wikipedia only cares if it is PD in the US, which is less unlikely, but I'm far from comfortable claiming. -- B ( talk) 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:C925ota.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gcardona ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, looks suspiciously like a product photo so I am suspicious of the license. Page 23 of [1] has several product photos of related products that are taken from this same exact angle, so while I couldn't find a source for this exact image, there's more than enough reason to suspect that it's cropped from promotional literature. B ( talk) 02:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - unless compelling evidence is provided that this is indeed an original contribution. Looks like it's copied from a catalog. AstroCog ( talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:C2F26D10-C09F-38A7-9F686042D1528023.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sactor ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Grdina B ( talk) 02:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:C2F26D10-C09F-38A7-9F686042D1528023-247707.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sactor ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Grdina B ( talk) 02:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Cʒ.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vixinu ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, I guess this was supposed to be for Carolingian G, only it's not very good B ( talk) 02:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Dws-user-img-tattoo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dws ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned user pic of departed user. Questionable licensing since I would assume that the copyright holder is the tattooer, not the tattooee, right? B ( talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:RoadTrip 2005 0526 223808.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chirags ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, extremely low quality B ( talk) 16:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Word2010Ribbon.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ev149 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Hello. I have no doubt that this non-free image is uploaded in good faith. Nevertheless, WP:NFCC#3 states that two non-free images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia if one can fulfill both purposes. In this case, File:Office2007ribbon.png can perfectly do this image's job while this image cannot replace Office2007ribbon.png. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Codename Lisa ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question Is there some freely licensed program which contains the same feature? If so, I would argue that this additionally violates WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could easily in Visual Studio whip up a dummy test program that uses the ribbon bar. But my question would be whether the ribbon bar itself is copyrightable, so even if I make my own application that uses the ribbon bar, would I be able to license a screenshot under a completely free license? See figure 11-4 at [2] for what a blank ribbon bar that you would create in Visual Studio. I'm going completely off of memory here, but years ago, when this stuff first came out, I remember looking into it and at the time, and I could have sworn that Microsoft made you acknowledge that they owned the copyright on the ribbon bar in order to download the SDK. Here is a blog post about it. It doesn't speak of "copyright" specifically - just intellectual property in general, but the point is I'm not certain that there could be any such thing as a "free" screenshot of a product that uses the ribbon bar. I also took a look at Telerik, which has their own schnazzy ribbon bar for developers, but their license agreement specifically says that you can only sublicense the software in binary form, which would seem to preclude my writing a program and then sublicensing a screenshot of it. Anyway, unless the hypothetical freely licensed program actually developed their own ribbon bar and isn't using either the Microsoft one or another third party toolkit, then I'm not sure we're going to have a free alternative. -- B ( talk) 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Hello, guys. The ribbon and the ribbon SDK have different stories. While the look itself is concerned, no, Microsoft cannot copyright-protect the ribbon itself. It does not fall within the threshold of originality as it is purely made of simple shapes (especially in Office 2013). The SDK, however, is another matter entirely. Meanwhile, the article discusses Microsoft's use of ribbon and therefore the image of Microsoft Office has contextual significance. So, I'd say your time is best spent elsewhere. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      • If you are completely convinced that the ribbon bar itself is PD-ineligible, please feel free to upload http://brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files/ribbonbarclean.png, which I have created in Visual Studio using the Microsoft ribbon bar. (I made a new C++ MFC app using the app wizard and removed the image-based buttons that it puts on there by default.) To the extent that there is anything creative in what I did with this image (which I don't think there is), I release it into the public domain. I'm not entirely convinced, though, that the ribbon itself is PD-ineligible, but if you are, you are welcome to upload it. Obviously, this would be a free alternative to using the screenshot of the one from Office. -- B ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Point number 2 - Microsoft's patent - http://www.google.com/patents/US8296673?dq=microsoft+ribbon+bar+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ck1bUYDuHKPWyQHysoHwBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA - has mockups of the ribbon bar. According to Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution, copyright protection is only afforded to the contents of a patent if they comply with a formality regarding notice. I don't see that this formality was complied with, so we could use the mockups from the patent application to our heart's content - another free alternative. -- B ( talk) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Hi. Looks like you are not the first one to have thought of creating one in Visual Studio. Please see Commons:Category:Toolbars. But since I was looking something simpler and more modern (actually, something like Office 2013), I made one unlike those. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. We can use a screen shot of GIMP or something similar and upload it. Should we just overwrite this image to save the hassles? We can rename it GIMP 2.8 ribbon.png and then delete the older version if that is easier.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 17:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Use one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:English_GIMP_screenshots for the article or upload a better sample that matches the article from free software.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, we cannot. Those images do not feature ribbon (computing). But like I said, we can use File:Office2007ribbon.png. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• There must be a free licence software program that does use them though. Therefore they can be replaced with free licence images and we shouldn't host one for a generic article about the term. Does OpenOffice use ribbons?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Hi. User:B has created a free one for us. (Thanks, B.) It is in all aspects superior to our current options. OpenOffice has promised a ribbon since 2008 but nothing is released as yet. I heard RedOffice (a fork of OpenOffice) was supposed to implement ribbons as well. Perhaps it is worth checking. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note that the particular layout of the MS Word ribbon is relevant to the sections "Microsoft software", "Reaction" and "Controversy" sections at Ribbon (computing); a different ribbon layout from a different software would be enough to explain the concept, but the Word 2007 image is still necessary to explain the controversy created by the change from Word 2003. Diego ( talk) 22:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Codename Lisa, the File:Office2007ribbon version is enough for the critical commentary found at Ribbon (computing). Diego ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Eastwood Academy TAKS commended percentages.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Furuiyanagi ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:FirstAngle.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samiran cj ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is incorrect, image shows Third Angle projection, not First Angle projection as filename suggests. Images also disagrees with File:Convention placement vues dessin technique.svg. See http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/demosites/series9/905/2_draw/draw_t3/htm/draw3_2_4.htm and http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho1.htm for corroboration. 103.22.211.1 ( talk) 23:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with 103.22.211.1 - at school, being British, we were taught to use first-angle projection; this was explained, and we were also shown how this differed from third-angle projection (which the Americans use).

• Yarwood, A. (1978) [1971]. Technical Drawing 1. Sunbury-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson. pp. 46 et seq., 73. ISBN  0-17-431213-X.

We were shown the "truncated cone" symbols for these - I can confirm that File:FirstAngle.png actually shows the symbol for third-angle projection. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question If the file name is wrong, shouldn't it just be renamed instead of being deleted? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, it's not a particularly good drawing either, with all those jagged edges - consider that the left-hand side is supposed to be an isosceles trapezium, and the right-hand side two concentric circles. The whole thing can be redrawn in SVG quite easily - it wouldn't take more than five lines or so, plus the usual seven-line overhead. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The image is now redundant to File:First angle projection symbol.svg (which admittedly hasn't been processed into a png very well - the original looks better). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:ThirdAngle.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samiran cj ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is incorrect, image shows First Angle projection, not Third Angle projection as filename suggests. Images also disagrees with File:Convention placement vues dessin technique.svg. See http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/demosites/series9/905/2_draw/draw_t3/htm/draw3_2_5.htm and http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/ortho1.htm for corroboration. 103.22.211.1 ( talk) 23:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with 103.22.211.1 - see my comments above - I can confirm that File:ThirdAngle.png actually shows the symbol for first-angle projection. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Question If the file name is wrong, shouldn't it just be renamed instead of being deleted? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

See my answer above. Also, the image is now redundant to File:Third angle projection symbol.svg (which admittedly hasn't been processed into a png very well - the original looks better). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:50, 5 April 2013 (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.