These .png files created by TwinsMetsFan have all been recreated as .svg files posted to the Commons. All links to the .png files have been replaced, so they are orphans. TwinsMetsFan indicated after a previous nomination of 20 on
29-Jan that he would have speedy tagged the images. Based on
this discussion I am bringing all of them here in a mass nomination. I have notified TwinsMetsFan of this mass nomination by posting a link on his talk page to here. —
BigrTex00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Bah, the French Navy didn't know what kind of license to put, so their webmaster wrote some silly blurb about Internet use only. We asked their communication service about applicable licenses, and they didn't answer, probably because they don't have a real policy on the issue and defining one would require somebody somewhere taking a decision.
All these photos are, in fact, promotional and communication photos of the Navy and as such fall under "fair use" in appropriate articles. Feel free to change the license if you wish.
Note that many of these photos depict activities, such as commandos during training, that cannot be photographed freely. There simply are no "free" photos of this kind of things, that is, unless somebody in the French Ministry of Defense decides to have a real policy regarding images.
If we are to delete unfree, fair-use images from military forces, then we will soon delete everything but photos from the Pentagon (public domain) and the odd personal photos (most armies restrict soldiers from making personal photos). This is, in my humble opinion, a great risk for neutrality of point of view, far greater than the silly licensing problems of the French government.
David.Monniaux03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
They may not have thought it out, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. We want Wikipedia to be as free as possible. That means not crowding it with unnecessary unfree images. I'm really not worried that a lack of images will make us biased.
Superm401 -
Talk04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm really not worried that a lack of images will make us biased. I am. I'm worried that on certain kinds of issues, we have on the one hand lush, plentiful iconography from e.g. NASA and the Pentagon, displaying what the US government wants us to see, and on the other side no iconography.
David.Monniaux08:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
delete would be a good picture if it had not been photoshopped but it is the pilots though and not actaually the aircraft it's self.
Keep The picture is also used in Bannisters article and is the only picture we have of him AFAIK. Even if damaged, it's wrong to delete the only picture.
WolfKeeper01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The source website states, "Some of these images were 'borrowed' from many other web pages, or emailed directly to me, thanks.I try to give credit to those who either gave these to me or if I get them from a site, Some I have scanned in myself or had someone scan in for me." This is obviously incompatible with Wikipedia. --
BigDT01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
That one could be retagged as fair use. It isn't just being used to show what the artist looks like, but also prominently displays his artwork and as such is not replaceable. --
BigDT01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The following was added to the image talk page (with me adding the unsigned tag) - "You are welcome to delete the picture. It was one used in the documentary, "Leona's Sister Gerri". It would be nice to see a picture of Gerri (taken before she died) along with the article about her. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FemDem (
talk •
contribs) " --
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I have added a fairuse tag to both images uploaded by this user and added them to the
Gerri Santoro article. There's nothing in the wikipedia guidelines that prohibits image licenses that prohibit POV uses. If you read the article you'd see why her family has an issue with the image of their daughter being used to promote an abortion POV. The license is fine, and fairuse should cover it anyway.
Nardman115:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Image:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). Unencyclopedia, and also NPOV - see image talk page. —
Rebroad23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep inasmuch as there is no real reason given to delete. The comments on the talk page referenced in the nomination are, "I would argue that this image is trying to put forwards a POV and is therefore not NPOV. For example, no explanation is made to explain what is meant by black or white, and therefore it is unclear what the information in the graph is portraying." Maybe I'm missing something, but I know what black and white mean. --
BigDT19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, ambiguous file name (notice that the three uploads have been totally different images), and it is currently too small to be useful --
Iamunknown04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Not really an orphan (linked inline from
Skyway). This image is from a US Government site, however, it is captioned, "TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS". This would imply that even though the map is on a US government website, the copyright is actually owned by the city and thus it is non-free.
BigDT15:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Disputed PD, even when changed to fairuse would be unneeded though as there is a Commons picture used in the article now, making this OR. —
doco(☏)15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
As the uploader of this image I agree with its deletion; it was created to illustrate a point regarding "replacement" images which "convey the same information." As that debate has unfortunately been decided, the image no longer servers a purpose.
VoiceOfReason05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Derivative works of copyrighted items are not eligible for licensing by the photographer, or releasing into the public domain. —
Jeff19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).reply
Copyright of image can be removed, images of household products can be released into public domain. -
Zelphics 19:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Keep - if my understanding is correct. I am under the impression that a photograph of a three dimentional object is not a copyright violation; given the photographer has creative ability to affect the lighting and angle of the shot. --
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - While a photograph of a three dimensional object is indeed not a copyright violation (see
Cloud Gate controversy [on sites other than Wikipedia, as apparently the WP article is lacking somewhat on the details]), this image is of such ridiculous low quality, it's... well, ridiculous. The focus is on the ground, rather than the intended subject of the photo.
Search4Lancer11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
THorton (notify |
contribs). Permission is claimed to release under GFDL but there is no evidence on the website that indicates that anythng is under the GFDL. No OTRS ticket number to verify such permission.
Image:Jawed.jpg is also a pd image that we know is pd because the subject of the article himself uploaded it. —
Hbdragon8823:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).reply
CV image falls under fair use if you used correctly but this image is a registered logo with Nintendo being used for article for another company not related to Nintendo — —
Kolrobie21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Obsolete (superseded by an SVG version on Commons) and orphaned, this is the only Stargate glyph image left on en.wikipedia. Deleting this will allow the
Category:Stargate glyphs to be removed as well.
These .png files created by TwinsMetsFan have all been recreated as .svg files posted to the Commons. All links to the .png files have been replaced, so they are orphans. TwinsMetsFan indicated after a previous nomination of 20 on
29-Jan that he would have speedy tagged the images. Based on
this discussion I am bringing all of them here in a mass nomination. I have notified TwinsMetsFan of this mass nomination by posting a link on his talk page to here. —
BigrTex00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Bah, the French Navy didn't know what kind of license to put, so their webmaster wrote some silly blurb about Internet use only. We asked their communication service about applicable licenses, and they didn't answer, probably because they don't have a real policy on the issue and defining one would require somebody somewhere taking a decision.
All these photos are, in fact, promotional and communication photos of the Navy and as such fall under "fair use" in appropriate articles. Feel free to change the license if you wish.
Note that many of these photos depict activities, such as commandos during training, that cannot be photographed freely. There simply are no "free" photos of this kind of things, that is, unless somebody in the French Ministry of Defense decides to have a real policy regarding images.
If we are to delete unfree, fair-use images from military forces, then we will soon delete everything but photos from the Pentagon (public domain) and the odd personal photos (most armies restrict soldiers from making personal photos). This is, in my humble opinion, a great risk for neutrality of point of view, far greater than the silly licensing problems of the French government.
David.Monniaux03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
They may not have thought it out, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. We want Wikipedia to be as free as possible. That means not crowding it with unnecessary unfree images. I'm really not worried that a lack of images will make us biased.
Superm401 -
Talk04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm really not worried that a lack of images will make us biased. I am. I'm worried that on certain kinds of issues, we have on the one hand lush, plentiful iconography from e.g. NASA and the Pentagon, displaying what the US government wants us to see, and on the other side no iconography.
David.Monniaux08:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
delete would be a good picture if it had not been photoshopped but it is the pilots though and not actaually the aircraft it's self.
Keep The picture is also used in Bannisters article and is the only picture we have of him AFAIK. Even if damaged, it's wrong to delete the only picture.
WolfKeeper01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The source website states, "Some of these images were 'borrowed' from many other web pages, or emailed directly to me, thanks.I try to give credit to those who either gave these to me or if I get them from a site, Some I have scanned in myself or had someone scan in for me." This is obviously incompatible with Wikipedia. --
BigDT01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
That one could be retagged as fair use. It isn't just being used to show what the artist looks like, but also prominently displays his artwork and as such is not replaceable. --
BigDT01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The following was added to the image talk page (with me adding the unsigned tag) - "You are welcome to delete the picture. It was one used in the documentary, "Leona's Sister Gerri". It would be nice to see a picture of Gerri (taken before she died) along with the article about her. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FemDem (
talk •
contribs) " --
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I have added a fairuse tag to both images uploaded by this user and added them to the
Gerri Santoro article. There's nothing in the wikipedia guidelines that prohibits image licenses that prohibit POV uses. If you read the article you'd see why her family has an issue with the image of their daughter being used to promote an abortion POV. The license is fine, and fairuse should cover it anyway.
Nardman115:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Image:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). Unencyclopedia, and also NPOV - see image talk page. —
Rebroad23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep inasmuch as there is no real reason given to delete. The comments on the talk page referenced in the nomination are, "I would argue that this image is trying to put forwards a POV and is therefore not NPOV. For example, no explanation is made to explain what is meant by black or white, and therefore it is unclear what the information in the graph is portraying." Maybe I'm missing something, but I know what black and white mean. --
BigDT19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, ambiguous file name (notice that the three uploads have been totally different images), and it is currently too small to be useful --
Iamunknown04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Not really an orphan (linked inline from
Skyway). This image is from a US Government site, however, it is captioned, "TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS". This would imply that even though the map is on a US government website, the copyright is actually owned by the city and thus it is non-free.
BigDT15:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Disputed PD, even when changed to fairuse would be unneeded though as there is a Commons picture used in the article now, making this OR. —
doco(☏)15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
As the uploader of this image I agree with its deletion; it was created to illustrate a point regarding "replacement" images which "convey the same information." As that debate has unfortunately been decided, the image no longer servers a purpose.
VoiceOfReason05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Derivative works of copyrighted items are not eligible for licensing by the photographer, or releasing into the public domain. —
Jeff19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).reply
Copyright of image can be removed, images of household products can be released into public domain. -
Zelphics 19:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Keep - if my understanding is correct. I am under the impression that a photograph of a three dimentional object is not a copyright violation; given the photographer has creative ability to affect the lighting and angle of the shot. --
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - While a photograph of a three dimensional object is indeed not a copyright violation (see
Cloud Gate controversy [on sites other than Wikipedia, as apparently the WP article is lacking somewhat on the details]), this image is of such ridiculous low quality, it's... well, ridiculous. The focus is on the ground, rather than the intended subject of the photo.
Search4Lancer11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
THorton (notify |
contribs). Permission is claimed to release under GFDL but there is no evidence on the website that indicates that anythng is under the GFDL. No OTRS ticket number to verify such permission.
Image:Jawed.jpg is also a pd image that we know is pd because the subject of the article himself uploaded it. —
Hbdragon8823:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).reply
CV image falls under fair use if you used correctly but this image is a registered logo with Nintendo being used for article for another company not related to Nintendo — —
Kolrobie21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Obsolete (superseded by an SVG version on Commons) and orphaned, this is the only Stargate glyph image left on en.wikipedia. Deleting this will allow the
Category:Stargate glyphs to be removed as well.