-NayI went ahead and added it to the
007 Stage article, since I think it would make for a pretty good addition. Plus, what the heck do OR, UE, and AB mean? Not the most friendly abbreviations to someone who doesn't edit the Wiki often. --The Listener 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it actually was Kate's tool who made the graph. It stopped making them a year ago or something due to some consern about privacy or something. But never mind, I'll delete it myself. I can still look it up anyway.
Shanes10:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, I note that
Adrian has 4830 contributions to Wikipedia. I think that entitles him to upload a photo of himself to use in his userspace as he wishes... WJBscribe12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Abstain, per propriety. If it comes to that, I'll gladly put it on my "official" site or my IMDb, making OR moot. As UE, I defer to
User:WJBscribe and
User:Gwern. —
Adrian~enwiki (
talk) 2007-01-31 07:58Z
Comment It's a free image, which is great, and the subject is notable, which is also great, but... it isn't used anywhere. It would be better suited on Adrian's personal site (like he suggested) rather than here, unless he wants to use it on his userpage (which I'd be 100% fine with).
EVula//
talk //
☯ //04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It was used on Adrian's userpage until recently. He may wish to use it again- is it really worth everyone's time deleting it so he has to upload it again next time he wants to use it? Adrian's an experienced user so I'm sure he'd tag it with {{db-author}} if he planned not to use it again... WJBscribe05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's used
somewhere now, making proposed deletion @ Images & Media For Deletion out-of-process, as it's no longer orphaned, and The Community™ seems to find it encyclopedic.
Amusingly, we really do have to file motions with titles like that IRL sometimes. I've always thought that if I nested enough iterations into it, they might just lose track and let the whole thing go.
Thanks again to everyone involved in the deletion discussion process, here and elsewhere. Your work in maintaining the community is appreciated.
I'm completely fine with this image, now that it is used. But unused, Wikipedia has no need for this. Putting into the article would not be useful. Perhaps Adrian could create a commons category and move all the images there and then insert one of those "Commons has media on this article" where a reader could see all 50 images of Adrian, if they wanted. Nonetheless, used there is no point in deletion. Unused we certainly don't need to be a file host. (see,
WP:NOT). --
MECU≈
talk13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Image rights owned by Time-Warner. Fair use claimed by uploader, but this detailed anatomical drawing goes well beyond simple illustrative fair use. Use of an image this complex and detailed is the graphic equivalent of lifting a whole paragraph of text for use in an article. —
Herostratus07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).reply
Delete again. This is an drawing. A complex one but still a drawing. Just like any diagram, a (free) one should be created based on published information, instead of using a copyrighted one. --Abu badali(
talk)12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep it. Note that Badali's objection is not that this is not fair use, but that an artist somewhere should redraw the same picture. However it is outrageous to assert that forging it is okay, but using it is not, when he doesn't challenge its status as fair use, Furthermore, no one in their right mind would believe that a real artist is going to waste his time duplicating a detailed medical drawing so that wikipedia doesn't have to use a perfectly good legal one from an out-of-print magazine, which is clearly fair-use,
If the policy is "no fair use images", then state it as such and let's not pretend otherwise. But if fair use images ARE allowed, this is CLEARLY one.
As to Herostratus' seemingly more reasonable objection, all information in this drawing appears in the text next to it. Thus it is NOT the analog of lifting text, without which the article would have less information. While it provides NO new information, it allows the reader to visualize facts which are extremely difficult--though not impossible--to imagine in your mind without the drawing. That's the canonical purpose of a technical drawing in a context like this.
Delete (once again; I already deleted it for being replaceable). We have plenty of skilled artists at Wikipedia who could make a freely licensed diagram showing all the important information shown in this image, without being a derivative work of it, at a higher resolution and with more legible writing. —
Angr06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep (by default) Well... if it isn't canon, then, at best, all we can do is remove it from the
Unification War and
Browncoat articles; it's in the public domain, so there's no reason it has to be deleted (ie: it isn't an unused Fair Use image, and it then becomes nothing more than a
userbox-specific image, which isn't an actual reason to delete it).
EVula//
talk //
☯ //04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a reliable source can be found to backup the claim that it is "The flag of the Independent Faction from the TV series Firefly", according to the image description. Wikipedia images exist to serve articles and other pages, and if this is just an pretty picture without verifiable reason to be here, I see no reason to keep it, never mind the rights issue. (We Wikipedian
Browncoats should be concerned about authenticity in importing such a flag, and if we don't have it, we shouldn't be using WP to spread fanfic even among ourselves on our user pages.) ~
Jeff Q(talk)17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Someone on the Browncoat talk page said that they stated that they have seen it on several firefly related pages. I asked them to give us some spesific web addresses, but they havn't got back to me. Also i think that changing the caption from "The flag of the Independent Faction from the TV series Firefly", to something saying that it is the flag of the 'Browncoat Fan' nation instead of the 'TV series Brwoncoat nation'. any thoughts.
Ps. i'm gonna go and serch through evry firefly website i can find and try to find the picture myself
Just because you can find it on Firefly related pages doesn't establish it as canon. It needs to be featured in the series, movie, comics, novels, etc. Anything else makes it fanon and not suitable for Wikipedia. --
Plexust19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
That plus some of the "not enough to back up the article on it's own, but enough to support harder evidence" stuff that i found (serenity merchendise with the flag on it, and the such) might be enough to keep it. The stuff that i found doesn't mean nearly as much as the flag being in the book, it just backs it up a little, and i think that might be enough to keep it. Any thoughts
ps. everything i've found said that the flag was in the shape of a triangle, not a rectangle. What shape is it in the book????
It is in a triangle in the book, but because it's a patch that goes onto a uniform shoulder. The star is also dark blue in the book, but it looks like it would have shown up black on film.
MorgaineDax14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The book is canon, correct? Cause if it is then we have canon evidense that Plexust said we needed above, and that means that this convo is coming to a close. (We'll just need to change the picture a bit, but anyone idiot with Paint (the program) could draw us up one)
OK i've decided that because the convorsation on this is pretty dead i'm going to make a desicion. I checked and the official companion was listed as a refrence on the firefly page. so i'm gonna wait a bit, and if no one objects with a resonable arguement i'm going to take of the deletion tag, and add the official companion to the image page (and the pages it's featured on)as a refrence.
CV; source listed as "South African Tourism -- free member download", but license is given as GFDL and I don't believe it, probably copyrighted by whatever tourism company it came from. —
Mangojuicetalk20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
unencylopedic picture of the pilsbuy dough boy with slanderous statments on the description page. Orphan. User has been indefinetly blocked.
Balloonguy23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
-NayI went ahead and added it to the
007 Stage article, since I think it would make for a pretty good addition. Plus, what the heck do OR, UE, and AB mean? Not the most friendly abbreviations to someone who doesn't edit the Wiki often. --The Listener 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it actually was Kate's tool who made the graph. It stopped making them a year ago or something due to some consern about privacy or something. But never mind, I'll delete it myself. I can still look it up anyway.
Shanes10:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, I note that
Adrian has 4830 contributions to Wikipedia. I think that entitles him to upload a photo of himself to use in his userspace as he wishes... WJBscribe12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Abstain, per propriety. If it comes to that, I'll gladly put it on my "official" site or my IMDb, making OR moot. As UE, I defer to
User:WJBscribe and
User:Gwern. —
Adrian~enwiki (
talk) 2007-01-31 07:58Z
Comment It's a free image, which is great, and the subject is notable, which is also great, but... it isn't used anywhere. It would be better suited on Adrian's personal site (like he suggested) rather than here, unless he wants to use it on his userpage (which I'd be 100% fine with).
EVula//
talk //
☯ //04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It was used on Adrian's userpage until recently. He may wish to use it again- is it really worth everyone's time deleting it so he has to upload it again next time he wants to use it? Adrian's an experienced user so I'm sure he'd tag it with {{db-author}} if he planned not to use it again... WJBscribe05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's used
somewhere now, making proposed deletion @ Images & Media For Deletion out-of-process, as it's no longer orphaned, and The Community™ seems to find it encyclopedic.
Amusingly, we really do have to file motions with titles like that IRL sometimes. I've always thought that if I nested enough iterations into it, they might just lose track and let the whole thing go.
Thanks again to everyone involved in the deletion discussion process, here and elsewhere. Your work in maintaining the community is appreciated.
I'm completely fine with this image, now that it is used. But unused, Wikipedia has no need for this. Putting into the article would not be useful. Perhaps Adrian could create a commons category and move all the images there and then insert one of those "Commons has media on this article" where a reader could see all 50 images of Adrian, if they wanted. Nonetheless, used there is no point in deletion. Unused we certainly don't need to be a file host. (see,
WP:NOT). --
MECU≈
talk13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Image rights owned by Time-Warner. Fair use claimed by uploader, but this detailed anatomical drawing goes well beyond simple illustrative fair use. Use of an image this complex and detailed is the graphic equivalent of lifting a whole paragraph of text for use in an article. —
Herostratus07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).reply
Delete again. This is an drawing. A complex one but still a drawing. Just like any diagram, a (free) one should be created based on published information, instead of using a copyrighted one. --Abu badali(
talk)12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep it. Note that Badali's objection is not that this is not fair use, but that an artist somewhere should redraw the same picture. However it is outrageous to assert that forging it is okay, but using it is not, when he doesn't challenge its status as fair use, Furthermore, no one in their right mind would believe that a real artist is going to waste his time duplicating a detailed medical drawing so that wikipedia doesn't have to use a perfectly good legal one from an out-of-print magazine, which is clearly fair-use,
If the policy is "no fair use images", then state it as such and let's not pretend otherwise. But if fair use images ARE allowed, this is CLEARLY one.
As to Herostratus' seemingly more reasonable objection, all information in this drawing appears in the text next to it. Thus it is NOT the analog of lifting text, without which the article would have less information. While it provides NO new information, it allows the reader to visualize facts which are extremely difficult--though not impossible--to imagine in your mind without the drawing. That's the canonical purpose of a technical drawing in a context like this.
Delete (once again; I already deleted it for being replaceable). We have plenty of skilled artists at Wikipedia who could make a freely licensed diagram showing all the important information shown in this image, without being a derivative work of it, at a higher resolution and with more legible writing. —
Angr06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep (by default) Well... if it isn't canon, then, at best, all we can do is remove it from the
Unification War and
Browncoat articles; it's in the public domain, so there's no reason it has to be deleted (ie: it isn't an unused Fair Use image, and it then becomes nothing more than a
userbox-specific image, which isn't an actual reason to delete it).
EVula//
talk //
☯ //04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a reliable source can be found to backup the claim that it is "The flag of the Independent Faction from the TV series Firefly", according to the image description. Wikipedia images exist to serve articles and other pages, and if this is just an pretty picture without verifiable reason to be here, I see no reason to keep it, never mind the rights issue. (We Wikipedian
Browncoats should be concerned about authenticity in importing such a flag, and if we don't have it, we shouldn't be using WP to spread fanfic even among ourselves on our user pages.) ~
Jeff Q(talk)17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Someone on the Browncoat talk page said that they stated that they have seen it on several firefly related pages. I asked them to give us some spesific web addresses, but they havn't got back to me. Also i think that changing the caption from "The flag of the Independent Faction from the TV series Firefly", to something saying that it is the flag of the 'Browncoat Fan' nation instead of the 'TV series Brwoncoat nation'. any thoughts.
Ps. i'm gonna go and serch through evry firefly website i can find and try to find the picture myself
Just because you can find it on Firefly related pages doesn't establish it as canon. It needs to be featured in the series, movie, comics, novels, etc. Anything else makes it fanon and not suitable for Wikipedia. --
Plexust19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
That plus some of the "not enough to back up the article on it's own, but enough to support harder evidence" stuff that i found (serenity merchendise with the flag on it, and the such) might be enough to keep it. The stuff that i found doesn't mean nearly as much as the flag being in the book, it just backs it up a little, and i think that might be enough to keep it. Any thoughts
ps. everything i've found said that the flag was in the shape of a triangle, not a rectangle. What shape is it in the book????
It is in a triangle in the book, but because it's a patch that goes onto a uniform shoulder. The star is also dark blue in the book, but it looks like it would have shown up black on film.
MorgaineDax14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The book is canon, correct? Cause if it is then we have canon evidense that Plexust said we needed above, and that means that this convo is coming to a close. (We'll just need to change the picture a bit, but anyone idiot with Paint (the program) could draw us up one)
OK i've decided that because the convorsation on this is pretty dead i'm going to make a desicion. I checked and the official companion was listed as a refrence on the firefly page. so i'm gonna wait a bit, and if no one objects with a resonable arguement i'm going to take of the deletion tag, and add the official companion to the image page (and the pages it's featured on)as a refrence.
CV; source listed as "South African Tourism -- free member download", but license is given as GFDL and I don't believe it, probably copyrighted by whatever tourism company it came from. —
Mangojuicetalk20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
unencylopedic picture of the pilsbuy dough boy with slanderous statments on the description page. Orphan. User has been indefinetly blocked.
Balloonguy23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply