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.
Non-free photo of a spacecraft under construction that was later lost in a havary, part of a
series of identical crafts of which multiple free illustrations exist. Uploader has argued for non-free use on the basis that (a) no free image exists of this specific craft as opposed to the generic type, and (b) the photo shows the craft in a state closer to that in which it was when it was lost, as opposed to the state it would have been in if successfully deployed. However, both arguments fail: (a) there is no concrete additional information value in seeing a photo of the specific craft rather than one of any other in the series, as long as there are no notable differences in design; such differences do not seem to exist (or if they did, they are not mentioned and discussed in the article); (b) to the extent the physical details of the non-final state of the craft are significant (e.g. that the antennas aren't unfolded etc.), this difference could just as well be illustrated with a self-made graphic. This is, in short, no different from any article on, say, a plane crash where we happen not to have a free photo of the specific plane involved; in these cases, we routinely resort to a free photo of an object of the same type rather than a non-free photo of the object in question (e.g.
Bhoja Air Flight 213 and many others).
Fut.Perf.☼ 09:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Progress-M drawing The photo is unique for sure, and a schematic diagram of Progress would not suffice for the article to serve as a visual identification for the exact vehicle (though it would work for the main article of the Progress spacecrafts). The photograph here shows the exact vehicle in the exact configuration for launch. Additionally, it shows the Progress in a configuration it may still be in now. While there are schematic diagrams such as the one here, the vehicle in this case may not have had solar panels unfurled and according to some reports likely the solar arrays and antennas never deployed. As stated in the rationale for the image, the purpose of the image is to serve as a visual identification for this spacecraft, in the state this spacecraft was in. The schematic thus represents the vehicle discussed in the article incorrectly (by showing a completely working, non-failed mission) and the existence of that file should not be used to justify the removal of the image.
In the case of the aircraft example, the aircraft most likely made it to a state where it looked something like the free photograph of the airplane. However, spacecraft have multiple objects that deploy after launch and orbital insertion. The photographs available and used in some articles do not accurately represent the state of the vehicle, and because the causes are unclear it is significant that the solar panels are likely not deployed, and the antenna of the Progress spacecraft is stated to not have deployed. The free images for this may prove to mislead readers or confuse them into believing that the spacecraft functioned to the point of the photograph when reliable sources say at the minimum telemetry was lost before spacecraft seperation and nothing can be currently confirmed as to the state of the craft. While there is currently no reliable source, photographs of the spacecraft from orbit (which are also non-free and too blurry to use as any sort of visual identification) indicate that solar panel deployment failed, while the free image above shows successful panel deployment. The image here most accurately represents the state of the vehicle and identifies it.
Appable (
talk) 06:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Changing position to Delete based on recent comments, and suggestion to modify NASA public domain image to indicate the failed deployment of antennas.
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Several questions: (1) What tells you that the state shown in the picture is significantly closer to its actual state after launch than the state shown in the free images? Your
WP:OR speculation? As long as this claim isn't sourced, it's worthless. (2) Is it actually closer to its final state? According to the source, the picture is from an unspecified time "during processing". What tells you this is the final configuration? And according to the article, the solar panels actually were unfurled in the end. (3) How are any such differences in configuration actually important for the article? Apart from the solar panels, the article doesn't mention any such details. In the absence of such discussion, what precisely does the reader actually learn from seeing the image, in terms of actual, concrete information relevant to the article? (4) Even supposing that there was an actual need for illustrating the visual difference between the target configuration after a successful launch and the configuration actually achieved, would the picture actually be suitable for this, given its tiny size and lack of detail? (5) Again, supposing there was a need for such illustration, why couldn't it be done (and done better!) through a self-drawn free diagram?
Fut.Perf.☼ 13:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Answer: (1) Apologies about the solar array claim, I thought I had heard that from another article. However, as reported by multiple sources in the article the antennas shown in the free photo were never deployed. From my perspective, it's confusing to have a diagram of a vehicle that doesn't represent the vehicle in its actual state, but rather a state that the vehicle should have been in. Because of the deployed antennas in the free media, the free media inaccurately represents the vehicle. (2) I believe that a photograph of the vehicle in processing much more accurately shows a vehicle rather than a diagram of a vehicle that shows antennas deployed. A vehicle in processing can't be mistaken for being the exact final configuration, while the free media seems to give the false impression that solar array deployment and antenna deployment went as planned. However, it is true that there might have been further processing until the payload shroud, or fairing, was applied. If that's the case, the photograph could be replaced by another non-free image from the same website that shows the vehicle under or entering the payload shroud. (3) As a visual representation for the vehicle under discussion, Progress M-27M, it shows what the vehicle looked like before flight. Specifically, the reader can see what a vehicle without antenna deployment would look like, which isn't represented with the current free media. The fact that antenna deployment was unsuccessful is certainly notable because it was the first indication of failure, as shown by several sources in the article. The free media represents a very notable component of the launch incorrectly which could confuse or mislead readers. (4) Yes, it is clear that the antennas are not deployed in this photograph as it has plenty enough detail for that, and the free media very clearly shows antenna deployment (which did not occur successfully in actuality). (5) It probably could be done through some image that shows solar panel deployment successful and antenna deployment failure. The likelihood of such a diagram existing, however, is extremely low because only involved parties have access to engineering documentation that would show Progress clearly in the antenna undeployed state. The involved party that would have free work would be NASA (who did the free media) but there is no indication that NASA will publish a diagram for this single launch.
Appable (
talk) 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
See above position change
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NFC#UUI §16. There are apparently other copies of the vehicle type which are completely or almost identical. A picture of one of those can be used instead, and some freely licensed pictures already seem to exist. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The vehicle pictured in those photos, however, show visual features such as successful antenna deployment that may mislead readers into believing that the vehicle looked like that in the incident. No photograph of the vehicle exists that shows antennas in the undeployed state (like the spacecraft actually had) except for the non-free photographs of the spacecraft in assembly. While each spacecraft is identical, this spacecraft had an anomaly that made it not appear in the same ways that free photographs could be taken. Specifically, the policy states: "if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken." and the spacecraft in the state of anomaly has not been displayed to the public in a way that free photographs of it could be taken (because it's difficult to take photographs of things hundreds of kilometers away from any human). Replacing it with a free photograph or the diagram linked above would be misleading because it shows the spacecraft with antennas deployed, a fairly prominent visual feature. The first indication of an issue with the vehicle was that the antennas were not confirmed to have deployed, so it's certainly notable that the antennas are displayed in a photograph when the actual vehicle didn't have the antennas deployed.
Appable (
talk) 23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
See above position change
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If I follow your reasoning, the thing that would be in need of illustration is not so much "what the craft looked like without the antennas deployed", but "what parts of the craft failed to deploy correctly". That's a subtly different matter. If you wish to illustrate what parts of the craft failed to work, why don't you just take the drawing above, color the antennas in red and add a caption "The antennas (highlighted) failed to deploy after launch". That would be not just of equal information value, but a hundred times more informative than the present photograph (because the photograph, obviously, doesn't give any indication of where the antennas would have been, hence no help in understanding what went wrong.)
Fut.Perf.☼ 06:43, 11 May 2015 (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.
Likely copyright violation. Image is a resized/cropped version of the subject's public
twitter profile (
direct link to photo). File was previously uploaded with no license tag and was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. File has been re-uploaded with a self-cc0 tag, however the uploader has made no credible claims to be the subject in question or authorized to release the photo under a free license.
Nick—Contact/Contribs 15:34, 9 May 2015 (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.
Non-free photo of a spacecraft under construction that was later lost in a havary, part of a
series of identical crafts of which multiple free illustrations exist. Uploader has argued for non-free use on the basis that (a) no free image exists of this specific craft as opposed to the generic type, and (b) the photo shows the craft in a state closer to that in which it was when it was lost, as opposed to the state it would have been in if successfully deployed. However, both arguments fail: (a) there is no concrete additional information value in seeing a photo of the specific craft rather than one of any other in the series, as long as there are no notable differences in design; such differences do not seem to exist (or if they did, they are not mentioned and discussed in the article); (b) to the extent the physical details of the non-final state of the craft are significant (e.g. that the antennas aren't unfolded etc.), this difference could just as well be illustrated with a self-made graphic. This is, in short, no different from any article on, say, a plane crash where we happen not to have a free photo of the specific plane involved; in these cases, we routinely resort to a free photo of an object of the same type rather than a non-free photo of the object in question (e.g.
Bhoja Air Flight 213 and many others).
Fut.Perf.☼ 09:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Progress-M drawing The photo is unique for sure, and a schematic diagram of Progress would not suffice for the article to serve as a visual identification for the exact vehicle (though it would work for the main article of the Progress spacecrafts). The photograph here shows the exact vehicle in the exact configuration for launch. Additionally, it shows the Progress in a configuration it may still be in now. While there are schematic diagrams such as the one here, the vehicle in this case may not have had solar panels unfurled and according to some reports likely the solar arrays and antennas never deployed. As stated in the rationale for the image, the purpose of the image is to serve as a visual identification for this spacecraft, in the state this spacecraft was in. The schematic thus represents the vehicle discussed in the article incorrectly (by showing a completely working, non-failed mission) and the existence of that file should not be used to justify the removal of the image.
In the case of the aircraft example, the aircraft most likely made it to a state where it looked something like the free photograph of the airplane. However, spacecraft have multiple objects that deploy after launch and orbital insertion. The photographs available and used in some articles do not accurately represent the state of the vehicle, and because the causes are unclear it is significant that the solar panels are likely not deployed, and the antenna of the Progress spacecraft is stated to not have deployed. The free images for this may prove to mislead readers or confuse them into believing that the spacecraft functioned to the point of the photograph when reliable sources say at the minimum telemetry was lost before spacecraft seperation and nothing can be currently confirmed as to the state of the craft. While there is currently no reliable source, photographs of the spacecraft from orbit (which are also non-free and too blurry to use as any sort of visual identification) indicate that solar panel deployment failed, while the free image above shows successful panel deployment. The image here most accurately represents the state of the vehicle and identifies it.
Appable (
talk) 06:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Changing position to Delete based on recent comments, and suggestion to modify NASA public domain image to indicate the failed deployment of antennas.
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Several questions: (1) What tells you that the state shown in the picture is significantly closer to its actual state after launch than the state shown in the free images? Your
WP:OR speculation? As long as this claim isn't sourced, it's worthless. (2) Is it actually closer to its final state? According to the source, the picture is from an unspecified time "during processing". What tells you this is the final configuration? And according to the article, the solar panels actually were unfurled in the end. (3) How are any such differences in configuration actually important for the article? Apart from the solar panels, the article doesn't mention any such details. In the absence of such discussion, what precisely does the reader actually learn from seeing the image, in terms of actual, concrete information relevant to the article? (4) Even supposing that there was an actual need for illustrating the visual difference between the target configuration after a successful launch and the configuration actually achieved, would the picture actually be suitable for this, given its tiny size and lack of detail? (5) Again, supposing there was a need for such illustration, why couldn't it be done (and done better!) through a self-drawn free diagram?
Fut.Perf.☼ 13:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Answer: (1) Apologies about the solar array claim, I thought I had heard that from another article. However, as reported by multiple sources in the article the antennas shown in the free photo were never deployed. From my perspective, it's confusing to have a diagram of a vehicle that doesn't represent the vehicle in its actual state, but rather a state that the vehicle should have been in. Because of the deployed antennas in the free media, the free media inaccurately represents the vehicle. (2) I believe that a photograph of the vehicle in processing much more accurately shows a vehicle rather than a diagram of a vehicle that shows antennas deployed. A vehicle in processing can't be mistaken for being the exact final configuration, while the free media seems to give the false impression that solar array deployment and antenna deployment went as planned. However, it is true that there might have been further processing until the payload shroud, or fairing, was applied. If that's the case, the photograph could be replaced by another non-free image from the same website that shows the vehicle under or entering the payload shroud. (3) As a visual representation for the vehicle under discussion, Progress M-27M, it shows what the vehicle looked like before flight. Specifically, the reader can see what a vehicle without antenna deployment would look like, which isn't represented with the current free media. The fact that antenna deployment was unsuccessful is certainly notable because it was the first indication of failure, as shown by several sources in the article. The free media represents a very notable component of the launch incorrectly which could confuse or mislead readers. (4) Yes, it is clear that the antennas are not deployed in this photograph as it has plenty enough detail for that, and the free media very clearly shows antenna deployment (which did not occur successfully in actuality). (5) It probably could be done through some image that shows solar panel deployment successful and antenna deployment failure. The likelihood of such a diagram existing, however, is extremely low because only involved parties have access to engineering documentation that would show Progress clearly in the antenna undeployed state. The involved party that would have free work would be NASA (who did the free media) but there is no indication that NASA will publish a diagram for this single launch.
Appable (
talk) 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
See above position change
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NFC#UUI §16. There are apparently other copies of the vehicle type which are completely or almost identical. A picture of one of those can be used instead, and some freely licensed pictures already seem to exist. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The vehicle pictured in those photos, however, show visual features such as successful antenna deployment that may mislead readers into believing that the vehicle looked like that in the incident. No photograph of the vehicle exists that shows antennas in the undeployed state (like the spacecraft actually had) except for the non-free photographs of the spacecraft in assembly. While each spacecraft is identical, this spacecraft had an anomaly that made it not appear in the same ways that free photographs could be taken. Specifically, the policy states: "if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken." and the spacecraft in the state of anomaly has not been displayed to the public in a way that free photographs of it could be taken (because it's difficult to take photographs of things hundreds of kilometers away from any human). Replacing it with a free photograph or the diagram linked above would be misleading because it shows the spacecraft with antennas deployed, a fairly prominent visual feature. The first indication of an issue with the vehicle was that the antennas were not confirmed to have deployed, so it's certainly notable that the antennas are displayed in a photograph when the actual vehicle didn't have the antennas deployed.
Appable (
talk) 23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
See above position change
Appable (
talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If I follow your reasoning, the thing that would be in need of illustration is not so much "what the craft looked like without the antennas deployed", but "what parts of the craft failed to deploy correctly". That's a subtly different matter. If you wish to illustrate what parts of the craft failed to work, why don't you just take the drawing above, color the antennas in red and add a caption "The antennas (highlighted) failed to deploy after launch". That would be not just of equal information value, but a hundred times more informative than the present photograph (because the photograph, obviously, doesn't give any indication of where the antennas would have been, hence no help in understanding what went wrong.)
Fut.Perf.☼ 06:43, 11 May 2015 (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.
Likely copyright violation. Image is a resized/cropped version of the subject's public
twitter profile (
direct link to photo). File was previously uploaded with no license tag and was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. File has been re-uploaded with a self-cc0 tag, however the uploader has made no credible claims to be the subject in question or authorized to release the photo under a free license.
Nick—Contact/Contribs 15:34, 9 May 2015 (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.
