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.
This copyrighted image is rationaled "to demonstrate the visual appearance of typical CGA graphics". Ignoring the fact that there's no sourcing for "typical", can't this image's purpose be easily replaced with
libre content by somebody with competent graphics abilities? It's constitutive of three colours, 64k pixels, and some basic animation; fails
WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I believe this image accurately represents the appearance of CGA graphics from the period. The problem with making a new libre image is that it wouldn't be "authentic". See the discussion about the Arachne browser screenshot image that also is on the CGA page, for more on this. If wanted, I could contact the Digger author on their webpage, and see if they're willing to free the image. If a public domain game can be found from the period, that was widely played by many people and thus recognizable, then a screenshot from that would be a good candidate image to replace the Digger image. --
Kreline (
talk)
20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't reference
Digger except to caption this image, having no
reliable sourcing for it's representative nature. The CGA graphics, per the article, are defined by colour pallet and resolution restrictions; any
libre imagery could accurately represent those specifics. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
07:59, 3 October 2008 (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.
Delete - almost certainly has a fraudulent license - user has uploaded copyrighted photos with "PD-self" licenses, and other images of this woman with unflattering filenames.
WilyD12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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.
Unfree image from what looks like a professional photographer's website. The subject (
Adam ant is still around and able to be photgraphed. Image fails
WP:NFCC#1 as a free alternate is able to be made
Peripitus(Talk)12:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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.
I'm not qualified to argue the point of derivative works, but should this fall under that realm, it would not qualify under the
WP:NFCC and should be deleted. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
17:26, 3 October 2008 (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.
This copyrighted image is rationaled "to demonstrate the visual appearance of typical CGA graphics". Ignoring the fact that there's no sourcing for "typical", can't this image's purpose be easily replaced with
libre content by somebody with competent graphics abilities? It's constitutive of three colours, 64k pixels, and some basic animation; fails
WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I believe this image accurately represents the appearance of CGA graphics from the period. The problem with making a new libre image is that it wouldn't be "authentic". See the discussion about the Arachne browser screenshot image that also is on the CGA page, for more on this. If wanted, I could contact the Digger author on their webpage, and see if they're willing to free the image. If a public domain game can be found from the period, that was widely played by many people and thus recognizable, then a screenshot from that would be a good candidate image to replace the Digger image. --
Kreline (
talk)
20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't reference
Digger except to caption this image, having no
reliable sourcing for it's representative nature. The CGA graphics, per the article, are defined by colour pallet and resolution restrictions; any
libre imagery could accurately represent those specifics. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
07:59, 3 October 2008 (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.
Delete - almost certainly has a fraudulent license - user has uploaded copyrighted photos with "PD-self" licenses, and other images of this woman with unflattering filenames.
WilyD12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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.
Unfree image from what looks like a professional photographer's website. The subject (
Adam ant is still around and able to be photgraphed. Image fails
WP:NFCC#1 as a free alternate is able to be made
Peripitus(Talk)12:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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.
I'm not qualified to argue the point of derivative works, but should this fall under that realm, it would not qualify under the
WP:NFCC and should be deleted. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
17:26, 3 October 2008 (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.