Shows alternate title for U.S. release, don't think its necessary for inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Supports extremely detailed critical commentary on the film, per Wikipedia's guidelines and custom, and vividly illustrates for the reader the U.S. release marketing campaign, which is also detailed in the text of the section.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
However, its inclusion just shows the card and the different title. For an image like this to be included, there would need to be commentary about card itself (Did reviewers criticize/commend it as compared to the original poster? or Was the marketing question on the side of the card focused on at all?). There should be some indication for why we are looking to this image, instead of just a poster with the title. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
It appears to me that you are suggesting that an image of the US release film poster would be acceptable as a replacement for the lobby card image currently in the article. I will make the replacement.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 22:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The type of image isn't the issue, but what content it's supposed to be supporting. I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was another line or two in the caption maybe focusing on the significance of the name change. Many films usually have alternate titles in foreign releases, but if the caption could clarify why it was important here, it would be great to keep the image there. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Shows multiple lead characters, essential information about any narrative movie. No overlap with other images from film. Fully meets letter and spirit of policy and guideline.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
This may be helpful for illustrating younger view of character before later becoming deformed, but also could be seen as decorative. Thoughts? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Probably don't need an image of him in every medium. Possibly include this one or the one below of the comic? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Swhde16 bg.JPG, located in Star Wars literature section, comic strip panel
Probably don't need an image of him in every medium. Possibly include this one or the one above of him in the TV show? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A few sentences talk about the character, but not of the design/costume. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Shows a screenshot of the colorized version, doesn't seem that helpful unless maybe it had a side-by-side comparison. Even then, there should be focus in article on opposition/reception/technology used. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A few sentences talk about the character, but not of the design/costume. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption mentioned that masks were featured in magazine article, don't think that is strong enough to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Could probably be replaced with a free image of people are the instrument. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption focuses on title versus the first film, don't think its strong enough to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Prose discusses opening, but single frame doesn't see helpful. Maybe a video sample could be used? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Used for discussing sexuality, but free image of actress would seem to be able to replace this. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't agree. The discussion of aberrant sexuality in the article specifically relates to Tenebrae and the use of the ambiguous male/female in this role plays an important part in the film's narrative and thematic concerns. Using a generic free photo of the actress (if any exist) would not serve any purpose, and in fact to me would be merely decorative.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The use of a free image could technically be decorative since we don't have to worry about copyright issues. However for this screenshot, it just shows a woman looking towards the camera. Its use here doesn't really convey anything about the ""Aberrant" sexuality" section. If a screenshot could be found for one of the scenes described in the section, that would have a stronger rationale for allowing the image. Otherwise, it just looks like we're including an image to say "Look, she's sexy" which seems decorative in this use. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 05:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
But the image in question is a screenshot taken from one of the scenes described in the section, depicting the character about to be murdered in one of the film's flashbacks. I'll change the caption to make this more clear.-
Hal Raglan (
talk) 01:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Article contains 16 images, 15 of which are non-free, one a diagram is in Commons.
The article includes two images both by artist Jim Lee. At least one of those should go, and I think the image used in the infobox is a very representative image of Batman and it would be a shame to lose it.
Although it seems sensible to reuse images once they are included in Wikipedia already that is not the reality I have seen in other articles, and the standard should be applied consistently. There is no real need to include the Frank Miller Dark Knight cover image in the main Batman article. The third image by Jim Lee showing Batmans enemies also seems like a smart bit of reuse but similarly incompatible with the strict interpretation of the image policy I've experienced.
Maybe I'm missing some important subtlety but the image of
Dick Grayson as Batman doesn't seem distinctly different enough to belong in the Batman article but it would seem easier to justify in the
Dick Grayson article (which incidentally has two images of Chris O'Donnell as Robin, when it seems like only one would be needed).
The painted image by Alex Ross, the Batman Animated series image, and the Michael Keaton, as the first film Batman, are all particularly strong images. I'd suggest they be last on the list of any images to be removed, each being representative of large parts of the Batman style (comic/television, film, animation, respectively).
Fundamentally I don't think removing any of these images will make the article better - I'd encourage the better editors to make sure to improve the article before removing any images that compensate for weak text - but if this article shouldn't be exempt from the rules being applied severely and strictly applied elsewhere. --
Horkana (
talk) 01:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption talks about game being used, by single frame doesn't really provide additional detail to support prose. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
This could be replaced by a free image instead if the old version is used. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Probably should be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Most of those actors have free images on their pages. No reason to use a NFI. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove, all living people looking like themselves so no justification for using a non-free image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
This would probably be more helpful if a video sample was used instead. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove per above. Nothing to gain from this image. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove still image doesn't illustrate the concept mentioned in the caption, leaving it as purely decorative. Agree with Nehrams that having a short video clip might be more justifiable, and a better illustration of the topic. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
So-so on this. I believe the Fair use rationale suffices for this one. Keep —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove purely decorative. Doesn't really enhance the readers understanding of the use of animitronics, nor of this particular one. No different from the scene in the film, except for being able to actually see the crew. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Used to illustrate scene that was used for magazine ranking, kind of a toss-up for me. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove Not a very appealing image. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove unnecessary illustration and purely decorative. A screenshot is not necessary to illustrate the statement, and a still image alone can't adequately show the "magical moment" being mentioned. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see were costume design is talked about in the article. Also don't see anything unique about their costume. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed with Mike. If no information can be added, this picture is just here to show off the cast. My votes for remove.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove I do not think this image meets
WP:NONFREE as it illustrates living people who do not look significantly different from "normal" (so replaceable by free) and there seems to be no demonstrable coverage on the costume design in the film that might justify such an image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Opening isn't discussed in effects section, perhaps one could be added about the title opening instead? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Probably keep is the modified opening is discussed. If not, remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
RemoveThe opening is only briefly discussed, and it doesn't appear to be a concept that cannot be adequately described in words. If kept, the caption needs sourcing or something as the phrase used there is not used in the article. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I can't tell that he's "mad" in that image. Unneeded. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove. Price looks more exhausted. No real information otherwise. Remove.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove purely decorative and does not illustrate any concept or idea not already better described in words. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove - Although I am the editor who originally added the image to the article, the arguments above are pretty persuasive, especially the one from
AnmaFinotera. I will remove this shortly.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 17:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Already too many non-free images on the page. Remove —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Removeappears to be purely decorative and adds nothing more to the article that isn't already covered in by the others in the image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
A pressbook is briefly discussed in the section, but showing the cover doesn't seem to assist in the reader's understanding. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove per above. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove, cover is not necessary to assist reader in understanding that a press book was released, and general preference is not to use a non-free book cover image outside of its own article. 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Any possibility this might be Public Domain? Oh, but who gives a fuck, this is a Project Deletion discussion. Happy Editing!
Dekkappai (
talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm sure that we do care if it could be public domain, as if that were the case, we would have this non-free image converted over to a free image. Do you have reason to believe that it is in the public domain (seeing that the film is from 1949)? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 06:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Scene is mentioned, but screenshot doesn't really show anything (especially in its current size). --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't even see piranhas. The source link is dead. Remove —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption comments on similarity to Jaws, but would probably need more detailed caption covering the similarity to the poster of Jaws. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree. Have added such discussion to caption, along with citation.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The style of the film is commented on, so a screenshot may be more helpful than a movie poster in this case. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree. Will seek out appropriate screenshot and report back within a few days.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Image of poster replaced with exemplary screenshot. Sourced discussion added.—
DCGeist (
talk) 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Primer.jpg, located in Transition II/The B movie in the digital age: 2000s section, poster
The use of the poster isn't helpful for describing the film for this sectio. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Supports detailed critical commentary on film, per our guideline and custom.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
On the other hand...this has inspired an improvement. Image of poster replaced with exemplary screenshot. Sourced discussion added.—
DCGeist (
talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I added this image to the article back in 2005, when the approach to fair use images on Wikipedia was very different. I see no compelling reason to keep it. If I'm being honest, the whole article probably isn't up to today's FA standard (and I speak here as the individual who wrote the bulk of it)... but that's a separate concern entirely. x
Extraordinary Machine (
talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Screenshot has character's facing away from camera looking at person running away, doesn't seem that helpful. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Ddlili.jpg, located in Lesbian implications section, screenshot of two characters
Keep - for identification and critical commentary of an important historical image, the first known inclusion of the
lesbian vampire trope in film.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Only the zero g image should be kept, displays how the wires were setup. I found it helpful to visual what they were talking about. --
Peppagetlk 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article's
GA review found no issue with the images. A subsequent
FA review found that the images used "are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three." The cast image passes the non-free content criteria as the "Casting" section specifically discusses (via sourced critical commentary) how the ages and sexes of the actors added to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the film. The image significantly enhances understanding of these points, as the "look" of the characters cannot be described in words alone. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The first one could probably be removed. The second picture I would recommend keeping since it shows the conditions in which the filming too place. The third one could probably also get removed, but some may argue that it is relevant in order to show the split screen effect that was used. -
Diego_pmcTalk 14:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - article passed
WP:GA with this image two years ago; the image is of historical importance since
George Harrison met his future wife
Patti Boyd on the set, and the image shows one of their earliest encounters. All this is addressed in the article text.
Rodhullandemu 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Walter o'Dim.PNG is significant in that the character has two different personas and that Walter is the definitive one at the end of the Dark Tower series. Up until a certain point he was an entirely different character in different books by King until King combined the two, which drastically altered the character of Flagg and his importance in the series. It's a very significant part of Flagg's character history and his publication history as to how the character evolved over the years in King's different novels.--
CyberGhostface (
talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is an entire section of critical commentary devoted to this specific advertisement that appeared in Variety back in 1979. It discusses both the impact the ad had as well as specific details of how Cunningham wanted the ad to look in order to create a buzz for the film.
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep The image has been moved from the plot section to the production section where critical commentary on the image is discussed. The image provides an illustation on the returning production members from the original london production by depicting the returning actor, costume designs by the returning designer aswell as production design by the returning artist. The fair use rational has been clarified to meet Fair use standards and it is believed the image now meets standards.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 08:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per fair-use rationale. The screenshots help readers understand key themes of the movie and issues in
Singaporean society. (I have no objection to renaming the screenshots in response to the deletion of screenshots 1 and 3.) --
J.L.W.S. The Special One (
talk) 10:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Judgedoom.PNG, located in plot section, screenshot of two characters
Moved to filming section which talks about the animated/live-action filming. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Lacking any images, are any available that can support one of the sections in the article? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Shows alternate title for U.S. release, don't think its necessary for inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Supports extremely detailed critical commentary on the film, per Wikipedia's guidelines and custom, and vividly illustrates for the reader the U.S. release marketing campaign, which is also detailed in the text of the section.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
However, its inclusion just shows the card and the different title. For an image like this to be included, there would need to be commentary about card itself (Did reviewers criticize/commend it as compared to the original poster? or Was the marketing question on the side of the card focused on at all?). There should be some indication for why we are looking to this image, instead of just a poster with the title. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
It appears to me that you are suggesting that an image of the US release film poster would be acceptable as a replacement for the lobby card image currently in the article. I will make the replacement.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 22:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The type of image isn't the issue, but what content it's supposed to be supporting. I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was another line or two in the caption maybe focusing on the significance of the name change. Many films usually have alternate titles in foreign releases, but if the caption could clarify why it was important here, it would be great to keep the image there. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Shows multiple lead characters, essential information about any narrative movie. No overlap with other images from film. Fully meets letter and spirit of policy and guideline.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
This may be helpful for illustrating younger view of character before later becoming deformed, but also could be seen as decorative. Thoughts? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Probably don't need an image of him in every medium. Possibly include this one or the one below of the comic? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Swhde16 bg.JPG, located in Star Wars literature section, comic strip panel
Probably don't need an image of him in every medium. Possibly include this one or the one above of him in the TV show? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A few sentences talk about the character, but not of the design/costume. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Shows a screenshot of the colorized version, doesn't seem that helpful unless maybe it had a side-by-side comparison. Even then, there should be focus in article on opposition/reception/technology used. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A few sentences talk about the character, but not of the design/costume. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption mentioned that masks were featured in magazine article, don't think that is strong enough to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Could probably be replaced with a free image of people are the instrument. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption focuses on title versus the first film, don't think its strong enough to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Prose discusses opening, but single frame doesn't see helpful. Maybe a video sample could be used? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Used for discussing sexuality, but free image of actress would seem to be able to replace this. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't agree. The discussion of aberrant sexuality in the article specifically relates to Tenebrae and the use of the ambiguous male/female in this role plays an important part in the film's narrative and thematic concerns. Using a generic free photo of the actress (if any exist) would not serve any purpose, and in fact to me would be merely decorative.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The use of a free image could technically be decorative since we don't have to worry about copyright issues. However for this screenshot, it just shows a woman looking towards the camera. Its use here doesn't really convey anything about the ""Aberrant" sexuality" section. If a screenshot could be found for one of the scenes described in the section, that would have a stronger rationale for allowing the image. Otherwise, it just looks like we're including an image to say "Look, she's sexy" which seems decorative in this use. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 05:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
But the image in question is a screenshot taken from one of the scenes described in the section, depicting the character about to be murdered in one of the film's flashbacks. I'll change the caption to make this more clear.-
Hal Raglan (
talk) 01:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Article contains 16 images, 15 of which are non-free, one a diagram is in Commons.
The article includes two images both by artist Jim Lee. At least one of those should go, and I think the image used in the infobox is a very representative image of Batman and it would be a shame to lose it.
Although it seems sensible to reuse images once they are included in Wikipedia already that is not the reality I have seen in other articles, and the standard should be applied consistently. There is no real need to include the Frank Miller Dark Knight cover image in the main Batman article. The third image by Jim Lee showing Batmans enemies also seems like a smart bit of reuse but similarly incompatible with the strict interpretation of the image policy I've experienced.
Maybe I'm missing some important subtlety but the image of
Dick Grayson as Batman doesn't seem distinctly different enough to belong in the Batman article but it would seem easier to justify in the
Dick Grayson article (which incidentally has two images of Chris O'Donnell as Robin, when it seems like only one would be needed).
The painted image by Alex Ross, the Batman Animated series image, and the Michael Keaton, as the first film Batman, are all particularly strong images. I'd suggest they be last on the list of any images to be removed, each being representative of large parts of the Batman style (comic/television, film, animation, respectively).
Fundamentally I don't think removing any of these images will make the article better - I'd encourage the better editors to make sure to improve the article before removing any images that compensate for weak text - but if this article shouldn't be exempt from the rules being applied severely and strictly applied elsewhere. --
Horkana (
talk) 01:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption talks about game being used, by single frame doesn't really provide additional detail to support prose. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
This could be replaced by a free image instead if the old version is used. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Probably should be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Most of those actors have free images on their pages. No reason to use a NFI. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove, all living people looking like themselves so no justification for using a non-free image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
This would probably be more helpful if a video sample was used instead. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove per above. Nothing to gain from this image. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove still image doesn't illustrate the concept mentioned in the caption, leaving it as purely decorative. Agree with Nehrams that having a short video clip might be more justifiable, and a better illustration of the topic. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
So-so on this. I believe the Fair use rationale suffices for this one. Keep —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove purely decorative. Doesn't really enhance the readers understanding of the use of animitronics, nor of this particular one. No different from the scene in the film, except for being able to actually see the crew. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Used to illustrate scene that was used for magazine ranking, kind of a toss-up for me. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove Not a very appealing image. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove unnecessary illustration and purely decorative. A screenshot is not necessary to illustrate the statement, and a still image alone can't adequately show the "magical moment" being mentioned. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Currently used to show cast members. Could it be used to illustrate costume design instead? Otherwise, this one should probably be removed. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see were costume design is talked about in the article. Also don't see anything unique about their costume. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed with Mike. If no information can be added, this picture is just here to show off the cast. My votes for remove.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove I do not think this image meets
WP:NONFREE as it illustrates living people who do not look significantly different from "normal" (so replaceable by free) and there seems to be no demonstrable coverage on the costume design in the film that might justify such an image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Opening isn't discussed in effects section, perhaps one could be added about the title opening instead? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Probably keep is the modified opening is discussed. If not, remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
RemoveThe opening is only briefly discussed, and it doesn't appear to be a concept that cannot be adequately described in words. If kept, the caption needs sourcing or something as the phrase used there is not used in the article. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I can't tell that he's "mad" in that image. Unneeded. Remove. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove. Price looks more exhausted. No real information otherwise. Remove.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove purely decorative and does not illustrate any concept or idea not already better described in words. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove - Although I am the editor who originally added the image to the article, the arguments above are pretty persuasive, especially the one from
AnmaFinotera. I will remove this shortly.
Hal Raglan (
talk) 17:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Already too many non-free images on the page. Remove —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Removeappears to be purely decorative and adds nothing more to the article that isn't already covered in by the others in the image. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk·contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
A pressbook is briefly discussed in the section, but showing the cover doesn't seem to assist in the reader's understanding. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove per above. —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Remove, cover is not necessary to assist reader in understanding that a press book was released, and general preference is not to use a non-free book cover image outside of its own article. 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Any possibility this might be Public Domain? Oh, but who gives a fuck, this is a Project Deletion discussion. Happy Editing!
Dekkappai (
talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm sure that we do care if it could be public domain, as if that were the case, we would have this non-free image converted over to a free image. Do you have reason to believe that it is in the public domain (seeing that the film is from 1949)? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 06:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Scene is mentioned, but screenshot doesn't really show anything (especially in its current size). --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't even see piranhas. The source link is dead. Remove —MikeAllen 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Caption comments on similarity to Jaws, but would probably need more detailed caption covering the similarity to the poster of Jaws. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree. Have added such discussion to caption, along with citation.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The style of the film is commented on, so a screenshot may be more helpful than a movie poster in this case. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree. Will seek out appropriate screenshot and report back within a few days.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Image of poster replaced with exemplary screenshot. Sourced discussion added.—
DCGeist (
talk) 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Primer.jpg, located in Transition II/The B movie in the digital age: 2000s section, poster
The use of the poster isn't helpful for describing the film for this sectio. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Supports detailed critical commentary on film, per our guideline and custom.—
DCGeist (
talk) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
On the other hand...this has inspired an improvement. Image of poster replaced with exemplary screenshot. Sourced discussion added.—
DCGeist (
talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I added this image to the article back in 2005, when the approach to fair use images on Wikipedia was very different. I see no compelling reason to keep it. If I'm being honest, the whole article probably isn't up to today's FA standard (and I speak here as the individual who wrote the bulk of it)... but that's a separate concern entirely. x
Extraordinary Machine (
talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Screenshot has character's facing away from camera looking at person running away, doesn't seem that helpful. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Ddlili.jpg, located in Lesbian implications section, screenshot of two characters
Keep - for identification and critical commentary of an important historical image, the first known inclusion of the
lesbian vampire trope in film.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Only the zero g image should be kept, displays how the wires were setup. I found it helpful to visual what they were talking about. --
Peppagetlk 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article's
GA review found no issue with the images. A subsequent
FA review found that the images used "are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three." The cast image passes the non-free content criteria as the "Casting" section specifically discusses (via sourced critical commentary) how the ages and sexes of the actors added to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the film. The image significantly enhances understanding of these points, as the "look" of the characters cannot be described in words alone. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The first one could probably be removed. The second picture I would recommend keeping since it shows the conditions in which the filming too place. The third one could probably also get removed, but some may argue that it is relevant in order to show the split screen effect that was used. -
Diego_pmcTalk 14:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - article passed
WP:GA with this image two years ago; the image is of historical importance since
George Harrison met his future wife
Patti Boyd on the set, and the image shows one of their earliest encounters. All this is addressed in the article text.
Rodhullandemu 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Walter o'Dim.PNG is significant in that the character has two different personas and that Walter is the definitive one at the end of the Dark Tower series. Up until a certain point he was an entirely different character in different books by King until King combined the two, which drastically altered the character of Flagg and his importance in the series. It's a very significant part of Flagg's character history and his publication history as to how the character evolved over the years in King's different novels.--
CyberGhostface (
talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is an entire section of critical commentary devoted to this specific advertisement that appeared in Variety back in 1979. It discusses both the impact the ad had as well as specific details of how Cunningham wanted the ad to look in order to create a buzz for the film.
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep The image has been moved from the plot section to the production section where critical commentary on the image is discussed. The image provides an illustation on the returning production members from the original london production by depicting the returning actor, costume designs by the returning designer aswell as production design by the returning artist. The fair use rational has been clarified to meet Fair use standards and it is believed the image now meets standards.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 08:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per fair-use rationale. The screenshots help readers understand key themes of the movie and issues in
Singaporean society. (I have no objection to renaming the screenshots in response to the deletion of screenshots 1 and 3.) --
J.L.W.S. The Special One (
talk) 10:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Judgedoom.PNG, located in plot section, screenshot of two characters
Moved to filming section which talks about the animated/live-action filming. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Lacking any images, are any available that can support one of the sections in the article? --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)reply