Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{short description|Wikimedia project page for file discussions}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
{{ombox
<nowiki></nowiki>
| style = text-align: center
{{deletiontools}}
| type = notice
This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For copyright infringements, use ]. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use ].
| image = ]
| text = ]{{,}} ]''{{,}} {{Purge|''Purge this page''}}<br /><inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Files for d<!--leaving "d" as-is helps extend "discussion" and "deletion"; please do not change this line without discussion; see "Misplaced Pages talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Archive searching"-->
break=no
width=50
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox>
| imageright = {{shortcut|WP:FFD}}
}}
{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:XfD old|total|title=Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion}}>10|{{admin backlog|auto=yes}}}}
'''Articles that have been listed for more than one week''' are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such images should be dealt with as soon as possible.
== Instructions for discussion participation ==
As per the ], ] can delete on sight "n image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Misplaced Pages and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained." This '''does not''' include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. Such images should be listed here instead. For the time being, this also '''does not''' include photos copied to ].
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format<br/> <code><nowiki>* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~</nowiki></code><br/> where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
* ] – Free equivalent is/is not available
* ] – Significance
* ] – Unacceptable image use
Remember that ]. Misplaced Pages's primary method of determining ] is through ] and discussion, ''not'' ]. Although editors occasionally use ] in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more ] than any other consensus decision.
''']''' -- ] -- ]
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to ], in lieu of responding <code><nowiki>'''Move to Commons'''</nowiki></code>, you can move it there yourself. See ] for instructions.
==Listing instructions==
To list an image on this page, simply add it to the bottom. If it is an obsoleted image, please also list the image that it is obsoleted by, in the format "<nowiki>]</nowiki> - obsoleted by <nowiki>]</nowiki>".
== Instructions for closing discussions ==
Please '''always inform the uploader''' of the image that their image is at imminent risk of deletion by adding a message to their talk page.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for '''7 days''' following the steps ].
If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article from which you removed it, so there can be effective community review of whether or not the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.
== Old discussions ==
Add the following message to the top of any image page listed on this page: '''<nowiki>{{ifd}}</nowiki>''', which shows up as:
{{shortcut|WP:FFDO}}
{{ifd}}
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
On this page, state the reasons that the image should be deleted. Some people like to use the following abbreviations:
* '''AB''' (absentee uploader} - the uploader has not contributed to Misplaced Pages in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
* '''CV''' (copyright violation) - the image might be used in violation of copyright, or else there is no copyright info provided
* '''NE''' (not English) - the image contains text that is not English.
* '''OB''' (obsolete) - the image has been replaced by a better version.
* '''OF''' (out-of-focus) - the image is blurry.
* '''OR''' (orphan) - the image is not used on any pages in Misplaced Pages.
* '''UE''' (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia
* '''UV''' (unverified) - image does not contain source and copyright info; tagged with <nowiki>{{unverified}}</nowiki>
Please sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
== Discussions approaching conclusion ==
==Instructions for administrators==
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
'''Before deleting an image, please make sure''' of the following:
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-7 days}}}}
* That the image has been listed on this page for '''one week''' or longer
* That the uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image
* That '''no''' objections to its deletion have been raised, or that a consensus to delete has been reached
* That the image is not used in any articles (note that "What links here" is not currently reliable)
* That the image is not currently being processed as a ]
== Recent nominations ==
To delete an image, open the image page and click either the link, "'''Delete all revisions of this image'''" or the usual "delete" tab at the top of the page. Either will work. (This was not the case in previous versions of the software.)
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-6 days}}}}
Also, please specify the reason for deletion in your deletion summary. Examples:
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-5 days}}}}
:''Orphaned and obsoleted, listed on IfD since (date)''
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-4 days}}}}
:''Orphaned copyright violation, listed on IfD since (date)''
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-3 days}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-2 days}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j|-1 day}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j}}}}
== Footer ==
If you delete an image listed on this page, '''please remove the listing''' and note your removal in your edit summary.
<span class="plainlinks">Today is '''{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}'''. Put new nominations in ] – {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|()|This page doesn't exist yet, please .}}</span>
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{tls|Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
When deleting an image because an identically named image exists in the ], make sure to preserve the image description. Otherwise the image will still be shown but the page will also say "This page does not exist".
Please ensure "==={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
===What links here is not reliable!===
The "What links here" tool is broken for images. Do not rely on what links here to determine whether an image is unused! You '''must''' use the Misplaced Pages internal search engine, with ''all'' namespaces selected, to confirm that an image is unused in the English-language Misplaced Pages. You should also be alert for signs that the image is used in other languages, some of which use external links to include images from en. See for the current status of this issue.
The page ] will always show today's log.
==Listings older than one week==
These need additional information or more opinions before consensus can be determined.
{{Misplaced Pages community|state=collapsed}}
* Unverified Orphans have been moved to ]. See the discussion on the talk page there for details on what is to be done with them. Please list unverified orphans on that page. If unverified orphans are listed on this page (]), then instead of deleting unverified orphans from here at the end of the 7-day period, they should be moved to the unverified orphans page instead. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Done tips 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; tip 3 is not applicable because only have one revision. And now this file is orphaned.<sup>A</sup> ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Done tips 2, 4, 5, and 6; tip 1 is not applicable because it using the same file name in commons. Tip 3 is also not applicable because only have one revision.<sup>B</sup> ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>B</sup>.
* ] → ] ] 04:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 04:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Done tips 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; by tip 4, the first upload is renamed as ]. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 05:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 05:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object''' to all of these. See below. ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] ] 05:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** <s>'''Object'''.</s> It is non-trivial to push an image to the Commons correctly. None of the ones I checked were done right. See ]. (I admit I only checked a few of the above. I'll withdraw my objection for any that were pushed correctly.) ] | ] 20:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete''', Same as <sup>A</sup>. ] 04:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] (the usage shown is not real, it is due to a template that has already been changed) -- ] 08:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Would you please check there's any incoming pages that link to this image, and change them to use the image at commons, unless the file at Commons is as same as Misplaced Pages? --] 13:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I've reviewed those articles. The usage shown is due to a template that has been changed, it is not real. Due to the nature of this, I would have to dummy edit each and every article so that the new image in the template is ''seen'' to bring the count to zero. -- ] 18:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:*<s>'''Object'''. The Commons version has no copyright tag.</s> What is the "permission", exactly? <s>Also, since the title changed, you have to make it obvious the old one is an orphan. It'll only take a few minutes. Just go through the list, and at each page click "edit this page", then "save page".</s> I went ahead and did a null edit on all the pages that used the image. ] | ] 23:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:** Objection withdrawn; the copyright has been clarified. ] | ] 04:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] → ] (the usage shown is not real, it is due to a template that has already been changed) -- ] 18:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**<s>'''Object'''. Again, the Commons version has no copyright tag. ] | ] 23:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>
*** Objection withdrawn; the copyright has been clarified. ] | ] 04:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. The information is self-promotional, and even if it were useful, it shouldn't be presented as a PDF. Quadell: if it isn't an orphan in a week and you choose not to delete it, please let me know. ] | ] 20:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** Will do, Cap'n. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
* ] and ] — suspected copyright violations. I asked the person who up-loaded them – ] – what the copyright situation was, and explained the situation; from being almost feverish in his or her editing, he or she stopped editing, and seems to have disappeared. ] (] 20:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. From the same user as the Body Modification Code of Ethics above. Misplaced Pages ''absolutely'' does not want to be giving legal advice. ] | ] 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. Let's avoid giving medical advice, too. ] | ] 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. Misplaced Pages isn't a how-to guide. ] | ] 23:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=== March 26 ===
* ] - UV, AB, apparently a copyvio, per ]. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. ] | ] 00:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. There's some usable information here, but PDF is the wrong format. ] | ] 00:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. There's no reason to transwiki this to Wikisource. ] | ] 00:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. There's a small amount of encyclopedic information, but it isn't worth extracting. ] | ] 01:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, UE. There's some encyclopedic information here, but it is totally unsourced. I don't trust it enough to add as text to any article. ] | ] 01:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] OR ] 02:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] – I'm the image owner, comments on the procedure I've followed are welcome. ] | ] 03:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** also ] – ] 11:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, ] ] 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR ] ] 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR, ] ] 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] OR ] ] 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - OB by ]. --] 07:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] OB replaced by ] (the correct spelling OOPS!) I am original uploader. ]™ 13:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - left over from a recently vfd-ed article, orphaned. ] 21:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - left over from a recently vfd-ed article, orphaned. ] 21:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===March 27===
*] → ] ] 04:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
*] OR,] ] 04:49, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
*] → ] ] 04:55, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
*] → ] ] 05:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
*] OR OB replaced by <s>]</s> ], uploaded on Commons. Delete the previous upload too. --] 06:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] OR OB replaced by <s>]</s> ], uploaded on Commons. Delete the previous upload too. --] 06:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*]. The version at ] is ''slightly'' higher resolution. :) ] | ] 06:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*<s>]</s>, (]), OR, ] 07:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC); deleted here and uploaded to the commons --] 12:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
*], OR, OB, replaced by ], ] 08:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - obsoleted by ] OB --] 09:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
** '''Object'''. The .JPG one is merely a cropped version of the .jpg one. When you crop an image, you should always upload the original uncropped one first. In this case, I've uploaded the cropped version to the .jpg name, and un-orphaned it. I'm nominating the .JPG one below. ] | ]
*], (], OR, ], ] 10:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], (], OR, ], ] 10:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], OB (replaced by ] - ] 10:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] (]) obsoleted by PD image ], ] 11:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''--] 15:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::With a perfectly good PD version of the image, can we even make a fair use argument? I don't think so. '''Delete'''. ] | ] 00:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:'''Keep.''' It's not perfectly good, it's a decade out of date and has a garish horrible background. I don't believe for a second that the first image is actually PD at all, it looks like a House of Representatives-standard image, which means that it would be available under the terms of ], exactly like the other is (I don't know what the source is, but I think it may be an out-of-date version of the Prime Ministerial website). Just because ] has neglected to add the right tag, we can't delete this excellent and quite legal image. ] ] 10:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Keep''' - Australian crown copyright explicitly regards such uses as ]. There is no problem here. ] 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
===March 28===
*] - OR ] ] 19:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
*] - OR ] ] 09:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
*] - OR ] ] 09:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
*] - if any image is *not* fair use, this is one. Large-format image, claimed to be "PD" by its many uploaders and modifiers, but actually copyrighted (pretty obviously, once one encounters the original). ]] 09:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** Keep. We investigated this on ] and determined the source. The uploader's erroneous claims aren't really relevant, I shouldn't think. It isn't a particularly large format or high quality image, and it's informative and used in an encyclopedia (here). Seems fair use to me. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 12:35, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
*] and ] presumed CV. Formerly used on ] which contained copyrighted text. ] 00:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], obsoleted by ], whic--] 19:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)h is '''127 times as big'''. ] | ] 00:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - fairuse, but unused. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 02:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
**I used it @ ]. (] | ] | ]) 18:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] and ]. Both uploaded by me. Grammatical error in the latter's filename, and I'll upload better quality images for the article on ] – ] 07:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] OR, UE. It's just black. ] | ] 18:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:You may have a problem with your browser. My browser (Firefox 1.0.2) shows it correctly. <s>'''Keep''', if the problem is not common, otherwise convert to gif or jpg. It should be linked to ] article.</s> '''Delete'''. Seems to be a duplicate of ]. --] 19:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
::Indeed, Firefox displays it, while Internet Explorer doesn't. But it isn't totally IE's fault: the image encoding had errors. I've uploaded a fixed version at ]. ] | ] 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], (]), OR, ] 19:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' looks fine to me and is GFDL you must have a browser glitch. ] 20:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*** It isn't GFDL. It's tagged as fair use. ] | ] 03:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*** Regardless, it is not in use and hasn't been in a while. ] 08:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* OB] identical (and illegal) version of ]. ] 03:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===March 29 ===
* ] and ] - OR, UV, ]. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
* ], (]), OR, UV, ] 07:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] - OR, ] ] 09:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. I uploaded the original and agree that the new copy is better. ] 16:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
* ] - UV. Note left on my talk page by uploader: ] confirms that there would be copyright. ''] (<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub><font class="plainlinks"></sub>)'' 10:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by ], ] 10:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by ], ] 11:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], (]), OB by ], ] 12:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*], (]), probably an orphan since Oct 2004, ] 13:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ], (]), discussion in ]. -- ] / <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ], OB by ]. ] 14:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Note, I uploaded both images).
* ], OB by ]. ] 14:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Note, I uploaded both images).
* ], ], ], and ]: Apparently hand-drawn images for a game, not used, aparently not needed. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
* ] - OB by ]. --] 14:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*<strike>] - CV - renomination looking to get more response and input after August vote. --] 22:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)</strike>
**'''Withdrawn''' written permission obtained. --] 21:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**''This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded'', ] 00:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***Not what the page itself says: ''On this page, state the reasons that the image should be deleted. Some people like to use the following abbreviations: CV (copyright violation) - the image might be used in violation of copyright, or else there is no copyright info provided.'' This photo is a copyvio. --] 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
****Yes, that is correct, we use it for images that are copyvios in addition to being orphans or having been moved to Commons. This AP photo is not an orphan. ] 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] and ]. Both obsoleted by ]. ]∴] 22:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
===March 30 ===
* ]. Essentially indistinguishable from the previously voted on ] image. The ] page already contains a drawn image which should satisfy any percieved need for visual depiction; this picture is just being used for vandalism. --] 01:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. The previous image ''Autofellatio.jpg'' had copyvio issues. This has none. The previous image was also being used by the autofellatio vandal nonstop, which spawned a raving lynchmob of victims. This picture is not being used in vandalism, and hopefully it won't now that the linking compromise (linking to the image from ] rather than displaying it inline) has been more or less settled. In any case, vandalism is not a valid reason to start deleting material.
*:This picture is also of better quality and illustrates the subject perfectly. The only reason (that I can see) that people can argue to delete this is personal distaste. Well, ] and it may contain material that, while objectionable to some, nonetheless serves a purpose in the appropriate article. And for goodness sakes, it's even ''linked'' from the article. ] ] 01:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*:Well, the picture ''was'' used in vandalism this evening (EST) (you can see my talk page history, for one), and I guess I fail to understand the compelling need for a high-resolution, close-up photo shot of what is already perfectly well illustrated, in a less inflammatory manner, there on the existing article page. --] 01:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*::I stand corrected. In any case, that's bogus to say that it should be deleted because of vandalism. I assume it was using the double-redirect trick – that's a problem with the wiki, and one that I think has been brought up with the appropriate people and will hopefully be fixed soon(ish). We can't just start deleting material that vandals use. Out of context (especially bombing a user talk page), many pictures may well prove to be offensive to the average user. The question really comes down to merits of the photograph. It is a clear, accurate depiction of the subject. I don't think it's any more graphic than the subject necessitates. Should there be no image at all, then? I tend to disagree very strongly with that kind of censorship. The photo is much more informative than the illustration (although I suppose that's the point some are making – that it's ''too'' informative).
*::I think a better solution might be to look into suppressing the image when it's linked to that way the vandal does it, if that's possible. (I believe some people brought it up at the last IfD but never followed it up). If it's possible to shrink the image ] but not alter the file (which one can view directly ), I think that would be a good idea. If all else fails, maybe shrinking the image would be an apt compromise.
*::I'm just saying, though, that many people voted to delete autofellatio.jpg from a sort of cost-benefit analysis pov, which I think can be solved creatively instead of deleting the image outright. ] ] 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete'''. Uploaded only to prove a point. There is already a PD image of the subject. ] 01:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. Assuming that there are no copyright problems, this image is fine. ] 02:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. ]∴] 02:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. A copyright-problem-free photograph displaying ] is encyclopedic. It's better than the copyrighted image that was just deleted, and more vivid than the line drawing currently displayed inline. It is <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>-ed too. ] has been recently used to vandalize user pages—should we move to delete that too? —]]] <small>2005-03-30 T 02:28 Z</small>
**'''Keep'''. The image is free of copyright problems, and illustrates the subject matter quite well. --] 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete''' as much as I dislike censorship, this is bound to be long term unusable by its copyright. Find me a legitimate GFDL or CC-by-SA or PD photo and I'll vote keep on it. ]™ 02:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:Can you surmise for us how you think this image might become unusable when ''"anyone can use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder and image provider are credited"''? This is actually less restrictive than a GFDL and CC-by-SA licence as far as I can tell. —] 08:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep'''. This time I gotta disagree with you, Alkivar my dearest. —] (]) 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete'''. Isn't really needed. Will harm Misplaced Pages more than it helps. The image has no place in an encyclopedia. Still, I appreciate Christiaan's efforts to get permission for this image. --] 02:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:No image is ''really'' needed Duk, and it's not a question of need, its a question of encyclopedic value, which it clearly is. I think the opposite will be the case in terms of harm done if this image is deleted on grounds of self-censorship to appease a few people who are offended by bodily function. —] 09:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:: I'm not offended by bodily function, and don't have a problem with this image personally. My vote is based on what I think is best for Misplaced Pages, for a bunch of different reasons. Please don't ascribe incorrect motivations to my vote that belittle it. Doing so betrays an intolerance for other people's views. --] 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:::I didn't say you were offended and I didn't ascribe any motive on your part. I believe the harm will be done if the image is deleted and I believe your argument that it will harm Misplaced Pages if it stays is appeasing a few people who are offended by bodily function, thus participating in self-censorship and diluting Misplaced Pages, of which the ultimate goal is to spread all human knowledge. —] 21:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**::::OK, you weren't ascribing the comments to my vote, even though they were posted as a response to it.
**::::As far as self-censorship and diluting Misplaced Pages and the harm you speak of, this is nothing new; we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time, yet objectionable images seem to get a defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship. It erodes the community's right to decide what we may or may not include in Misplaced Pages. The image isn't needed, there are plenty of external links. The value it adds to the page is minuscule compared to the damage images like this will cause the project. This is a judgment based on several different arguments. ] 23:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**:::::Who says it's objectionable? This is a subjective matter. And I'd ask that you do not attack those of us who are arguing on grounds of censorship, implying that we don't have the interests of WIkipedia in mind and stating that we are eroding the community's right to decide. We are clearly doing nothing of the such and I think it's pretty obvious in this argument who is not being up front with their reasoning.
**:::::This is a issue of great importance. This debate is less about an image and more about which cultural point of view will prevail on the English Misplaced Pages. We are setting precedents and it's my wish that Misplaced Pages does not go down the path of self-censorship. It may seem to you that such images get a "defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship", but has it occurred to you what kind of treatment triggers this reaction in the first place? And please don't give me the "we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time" argument. Following this logic nothing could ever be considered self-censorship. It is not your place to tell me what I shouldn't be able to view on grounds of objectionability; this is my judgment to make as a reader. For me this image is of great encyclopedic value as it demonstrates clearly an act that some people think is not possible, and it does so in an encyclopedic article about that very act. —] 12:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep.''' The vandalism can easily be converted, plus this is a better example of the technique in question than the first photo. ] 02:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', since copyright seems to be solved. I can't see that use in vandalism is a valid reason to delete. — ] | ] 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep.''' As I noted earlier about the previous picture, "seeing is believing." Quite a few people are skeptical that autofellatio is possible, and that photo is pretty convincing. The drawing is insufficient. Just as a picture is worth 1,000 words, a photo is worth about 50 drawings. The vandalism argument is untenable, and not worth further consideration. ] 08:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. I think these efforts to "purify" WIkipedia are becoming a real problem. I would hope enough Wikipedians have the sense to vote keep for this image, but I really think another solution needs to be found to negate the urge of some Wikipedians to involve themselves in self-censorship. A picture of a man sucking his own penis in an article about a man sucking his own penis is of encyclopedic value. To argue otherwise appears very disengenious to me, so I at least appreciate those who are arguing in favour of self-censorship; at least then we can have an honest debate. —] 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***There is already a PD image of a man sucking his penis, hence a non-PD image is unnecessary. ] 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
****Uh, then, perhaps you might point us to this mysterious picture? —] 21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*****I believe everyone involved have seen ] before. ] 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
******Sadily the drawing isn't a sufficent replacement. We could have a drawing of the penis going in one ear and out the other just as easily... A photograph is much better for demonstrating that this really is possible] 13:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. Good illustration for the article. ] | ] 09:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' If I start using this image ] to vandalise people's user pages, can I get it nominated for deletion? Please? ] 14:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:Spare us the thought. —] 22:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' --] (]) 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''--what Timbo said. ] 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete'''-- unencyclopedic vandal magnet. ] 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:Note: This vote was user's 11th edit. ] ] 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**::Timbo- Does this make my comment invalid? What is the required minimum number of edits before one is qualified to comment on a request for deletion? ] 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:::No, not as such. If there is a great number of votes from usernames with few edits, though, it's suspicious. I think that may or may not have been the case in the last autofellatio.jpg vote, and I'm not sure if they were discounted or not. (It's up to the discretion of the admin doing the deleting). I wouldn't be worried about your vote not being counted, though. ] ] 20:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' - we have more important things to do than be voting for pictures which are claimed to be "vandal magnets" but are only due to being in the limelight. --] ] 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Comment''': Perhaps being on Misplaced Pages for all of three weeks and having recieved nothing but vandalism on my talk page thus far has had the effect of setting me a little on edge. The vote appears to be going fairly strongly in favor of keeping the picture; I still don't understand the need for it, really, but assuming the consensus persists that it is a necessary and vital contribution to the article, would it at least be possible for someone to look into the feasibility of, say, blocking the ability to redirect a page straight to an image, or maybe blocking the use of redirects in the User_Talk namespace? I'm sure there's some way those could be used in a proper and constructive manner, but nothing comes to mind as of right now. I understand that the acts of a few vandals shouldn't be seen as representative of the Misplaced Pages community at large, and I'm really not going to be crying myself to sleep after being redirected to a picture of a naked man, but it's still not especially ''welcoming'', y'know? That's all I've got to say. --] 19:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**: Are there any situations where it is legitimate to redirect a page straight to a picture file? If not, then that ability should be disabled. If there are legitimate uses for this feature, then a short blacklist should be added to prevent redirection to certain specific pictures that have been commonly used for vandalism. ] 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**: That sounds like the thing to do. Whether or not we keep this exact picture, the very sneaky way the vandal uses it will remain. We can't guarantee that wikipedia will purge itself of every picture that could be construed as offensive when a user talk page blind-redirects to it. Just as we don't want usernames like ] or ] even though they are appropriate ''articles'' <small>(see ])</small>, we also don't want people being redirected to pictures out of their encyclopedic context. This is a vandalism problem, and it is bigger than one picture.
**: I could be wrong, but it seems the only thing we're doing to combat this douchebag vandal is to block the usernames he creates (after he's bombed various user talk pages). What we need to do, IMHO, is block by the vandal's IP (if that's feasible) as well as investigate the creative options I mentioned above (as well as any others). ] ] 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''DELETE''' - Ironically I who actually ''abhor'' the pornography laws that exist, have become involved in issues that involve prudent constraint against excesses of those who seem oblivious to much more major dangers to human freedom, as long as they can delight in congratulating themselves with glee at imposing the burdens of their peculiar tastes and sensibilities (or lack of them) upon everyone else involved in this project. <br> When the previous image was being voted upon I stated:''' "I am against IMPOSING censorship upon others who seek to publish such things through their own resources, but this is an ''internal'' matter of the Wikimedia projects, and a policy of greater consideration and discretion than this image represents is definitely appropriate. To say that this image is in any way "necessary", or that including this image serves the overall purposes of an Encyclopedia project is ABSURD. An adult would be arrested, thrown into jail, and accused of pedophilia in ''many'' countries if he or she were to show this image to a minor— it thus provides an apparently legitimate excuse for all manner of institutions or governments and the herd majorities of most societies to seek to ban or constrain access to Misplaced Pages.'''" That argument still stands. I also quoted ]'s statement: '''Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.''' <br> I repeat: I am NOT a person who supports legal censorship of others, BECAUSE I am a person who is considerate of others differences, and does not seek to impose my tastes upon others, but I DO support prudent self-censorship, that takes into consideration one's audience, which is in this case potentially most of the world. <br> There are adequate illustrations, and there are links to extensive Google search for web images on the ] page. I do not oppose them because it keeps the project itself relatively safe from becoming quite so easy a target of the close-minded. <br> The picture doesn't shock you, it doesn't shock me, but it irritates me profoundly that there are people who have so little regard for many of the much larger issues that are more important to address in these times, and so willfully oblivious to the reality of the vast majority of people who ''would'' be shocked at its inclusion in an Encyclopedia that aims to be a major educational tool for ''everyone'', including young children. Can you not see that such ''foolishness'', makes you among the '''''very best allies''''' of the very '''''worst''''' fools that you rail against? You provide a legitimate-seeming excuse for all manner of the "nanny-minded" fools who would simply use this as an opportunity to to exclude or restrict access to ALL of the information in the Misplaced Pages, because a few short-sighted people insist on trying to include such images as this. The reaction of the many people and groups to which you give ''legal'' ammunition to not only to seek to ban Misplaced Pages from many places where they have influence, but even perhaps to prosecute it under such Pornography laws as DO exist. I ''oppose'' these laws, I consider them ''stupid'', and at least as much an agency for evil as most of the excesses that they oppose...but they are very real, and very pervasive, and very dangerous to many people who do NOT have the convenient safeguard of internet anonymity, including the person who has been the provider of the Wikimedia servers, whose will and ''stated'' opposition you, who have benefited from his ''generosity'', are deliberately snubbing. '''Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading, and for the sake of those most truly devoted to spreading it.''' ~ ] 19:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*** '''Comment''': ''Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading.''What a jolly good point! Let's delete *everything* that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea wouldn't want us to have--otherwise we're creating a barrier to spreading our information! No? Thought not. --]|] 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:I'd be interested to hear more about these laws which could be used to prosecute wikipedia. I'm aware of no such U.S. law – perhaps because minors could come to wikipedia and see it? We do have a rather comprehensive ], and Misplaced Pages isn't (or shouldn't, if we have any commitment to an un-] encyclopedia) censored for minors. If a child unsupervised enough to come to the internet, look up wikipedia, look up autofellatio, and click on the link to this image, he might as well go to porn sites and look up much more pictures and movies.
**:You bring up a point: why doesn't someone host this picture privately, and why isn't the google image search link sufficient? I think there are compelling reasons to have it on wikipedia, if we decide that linking to any such image in any way is appropriate for the article (which I think most who are actually involved in this discussion agree with). We can control the way it is presented - i.e. with no popups, spyware, and other nasty stuff that one can get by going to actual porn sites. That's why it baffled me that we replaced a link to a privately-hosted autofellatio jpg image with the google link. If you click on ''many'' of those links google gives you, there's no telling what kind of crap you'll get. It seems almost irresponsible to me for us to just direct the reader to the google search and be done with it, even though we ''know'' we're pointing them to the sneaky tricks that porn sites use.
**:The google link notwithstanding, we can't even gaurantee that a privately-hosted picture we link to will be there tomorrow. It might even be another picture. Hosting the picture on wikipedia and linking to it from ], we can gaurantee quality, appropriateness, and context.
**:The vandalism is a problem, but as I've said in my above comments, I think we can (or ''should'') deal with that without deleting material from wikipedia outright. ] ] 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**:Achilles, I'm glad you at least admit to being in favour of self-censorship. At least we can now have an honest debate. I am wholly against self-censorship but what I don't have a problem with is end-user self-censorship. You might like to take a look at a possible solution for this: ]. —] 21:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': Use as vandalism is no reason to delete an image. (I know how this goes; the main image on my user page was deleted after a vandal started randomly slinging it around.) Double redirection should be fixed eventually, per bugs ] and ].<p><s>In the meantime, however, the damage dealt to the project by double-redirecting user talk pages -- not to mention random pages on less populated wikis, like ] -- is very real. Shortly before ] was deleted, ] (I think) used some jiggery-pokery with CSS to move the image description over the image itself, with a link from there to the image. At least until the bug is fixed, it seems reasonable to reinstate this on the current image. —] (]) 20:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)</s> Apparently, it's fixed now. Huzzah! —] (]) 07:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. No copyright problems, and a picture of a good looking man having about as much fun as a man can have without actually being on the inside of Kylie Minogue's knickers. --]|] 22:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete'''. Having wasted five hours today in undoing vandalism to cy.wikipedia when over 60 articles were moved and/or renamed and/or edited to point to this image, I have no tolerance for it whatsoever and would cheerfully suspend the vandal from a great height by a very thin wire wrapped round his testicles. This image is a vandal magnet, as are any other images containing the string "autofellatio" which I '''strongly''' believe should be deleted on sight. The drawing which is currently at the ] article is perfectly adequate. It's all very well for you to adopt an ultraliberal policy on en:, but this is having serious consequences for smaller language wikipedias which do not have someone permanently watching recent changes. -- ] 00:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete,''' for God's sake. ] a daring avant-gard "mind liberation" exercise. Do the high-volume, repeated, vandal attacks on newbies mean nothing to you people? The point of illustrating ] is that it's very difficult to get a good idea of what a clitoris looks like without seeing one. The concept of autofellatio is self-explanatory. The usefulness of this photo is nil; the damages the it has caused are massive. ] ] 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete'''. Dubious encyclopedic value, only use is to make a point by an absurd action, and its value that can be garnered by a simple description -- can't wait for an image depicting ] or ] to come up next, such an image would be equally absurd as this one. --] 01:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***Yeah, an image depicting ] or ] or the like would be completely unencyclopedic and offensive. Thank God we have none of those. ] 04:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
****You're absolutely right, poignant photographs depicting historic events certainly are on the same level of an image from a porn site of someone orally gratifying himself. As I said before, the absurdity of the arguments for this are truly astounding. To even suggest these two things as somehow comparable is an insult to those who were slaughtered by ] and his regime. --] 05:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' The image shows the possibility of the act in a way the drawing is unable. Is someone feels the image is too pornographic, then they can add a more clinical image, but since we do not have something better, and the image furthers the goal of the article to educate, we should keep it. Removing it due to vandalism would be pointless,as vandals could just upload another image. Removing it because it offends is imposing a point of view about what is offensive and what isn't. ] 13:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*'''This really is the wrong place for discussing this image. The image is not an orphan and the if's and how's of using it should be discussed at ], not here.''' ] 19:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' ] 20:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete'''. The Autofellatio debate has long ceased to be about content, and is purely about some people proving they can upload porn to WP, and keep it here. '''how''' is this image copyright-problem-free? Because this time, the uploader admits from the beginning that it is in fact copyrighted? ''Thumbnail'' this image, both for reasons of fair use, and for ''taste'' (no, good taste is not the same as censorship. look at ] for a brilliant example how such subjects can be treated ''tastefully''). I don't want to sound homophobic, but this recent insistence on hosting gay porn on WP certainly starts to create a jarring effect ] <small>] 09:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*:"I don't want to sound homophobic, but..."; "I don't advocate censorship, but..."; "I'm not against pornography, but..."; ] 16:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
*:Um, most images on Misplaced Pages are copyrighted, including every single one licenced under GFDL or CC-by-SA, so what's your point? And I've long since stopped listening to the argument that a picture of autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic. —] 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Oh, we ''must''. It is by our tolerance for such patently "offensive", yet totally correct and apposite content that we are defined as '''free'''. Let us not revert to Bowdler, who thought to improve upon the Bard by editing out references to naughty bits. Besides, the image is truly educational. I was not sure it could be done at all, and a drawing would never have convinced me. — ]]] 11:30, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
<!--autofellatio votes above this line please-->
*] - OB by ]. Both uploaded by myself, the new one is identical except for format (changed to .png comply with ]). --] 03:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - OB duplicate of ] (maybe Image:Earth.* should REDIRECT to Wikimedia:Earth so beginners will find those images?) --] 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] OB by ]. ] 11:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] UV - FairUse only and now better image on Commons: ] under GFDL --] 15:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ]. Same version at ]. The latter uses the correct name (Reichs instead of Reich) and it used on the page. ] 16:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*]. OB by ]. Both uploaded by myself, moving to Commons. --] 18:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*]. OB by ]. Replacement uploaded by myself, moving to Commons. --] 18:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] duplicate re-uploaded with wrongly capitalised extension (".jpg" instead of ".JPG"). ] 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - obsoleted by ], both PD-Old. ] uploaded original 35Kb version, and I uploaded better 258 KB version. I removed it from ] and informed both ], and ] page. -] | ] 23:36, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
===March 31 ===
* ] - OR ] ] 05:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
* ]. Former version UV, and OB by ] in the sole article ]. The new version is used in other articles as well, since earlier. The new version is ] work and of higher resolution for easier galaxy identification, while the former version has also been an image with unknown source for some time now, with no clarification on its status. --] 02:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
*], (]), OR, AB, ] 03:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*]
**'''Delete''' this offensive image derived from ] ] that does not belong on Misplaced Pages. ] 09:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**I see that this is here precisely to display it in the article on ], as an illustration of propaganda. If it is to be in Misplaced Pages, it should be re-uploaded at a less offensive name, one that overtly indicates that it is Nazi propaganda. -- ] | ] 09:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep''' I am the uploader, and this image was specifically uploaded and used to describe Nazi anti-Semitism. Of course it's offensive, all images in the ] article are offensive. That's why it's important to show them for what they are. What's next, are we to go to through all the holocaust museums of the world and remove Nazi images? They're there for a very good reason. The inclusion of the image was subject to extensive ] discussion, and is there by consensus. Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me, I heard about it from another. --] 10:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with the POV of --]. I also agree with the name of the file as it is because it simply descibes the file. To follow the reasoning to censor this is as you say, a reason to raid every Holocaust museum and every library to make the past disappear (ie ''Nineteen Eighty Four''), and get this, if the Nazi record does not exist, doesn't this put the would-be censor into the same camp as a "holocaust denier"? In other words fear begets fear and eventually fear will destroy the fearful as they make their own prophecies come true. Let the thing alone. It is what it is. ] 22:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*** Just an FYI, I wish to make it known that I have not the least objection to renaming. The file name was from the download cite, I have no attachment to it. Thank you. --] 09:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
***'''Objection''': The above statement "Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me..." is INCORRECT! I first listed this image for deletion at ] then '''I chose to contact''' ] see who I know could be trusted to add a reliable ] perspective to my nomination of this image for deletion, which he did and . I subsequently proceeded to ] with notification of '''"Nazi "image" for deletion"''' see but found that ] had already preempted me '''by 8 or 9 minutes''' see (i.e. Jmabel posted at '''05:38''', 31 Mar 2005 and I posted at '''05:47''', 31 Mar 2005) see timing at on User:AladdinSE's discussion page. Unfortunately, ] then ''erased'' '''and''' ''edited'' my notification to him making it "seem" like my notification to him was done as a "response" to Jmabel when in fact I was placing my own heading of "Nazi "image" for deletion" as I had done, see . After I objected to User:AladdinSE editing my notification he responded with "ONE HEADING PER ISSUE PLEASE, KEEP MY TALK PAGE NEAT" and again removed my original notification to him, and making it seem that I was "tailing along" with User:Jmabel and expressing "suspicions" of my motives . All a rather silly excercise and waste of time in order to "score non-existent and nonsensical points" when the real issue is my objection to his introduction of an ] ] "image" and his rather tepid response that this was all "NPOV" stuff and "no need to worry" Sheesh!. ] 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::'''Response:''' This is false. I never edited IZAK's comment on my ] page, which the edit History will prove. IZAK's "notification" on my page was made after I was already notified by ], and yet IZAK ignored the previous notification and tried to enter a duplicate one, with a new section title, completely ignoring the fact that I had already been notified by someone else. If IZAK wanted to enter a ''second'' notification after Jmabel's, he/she should have entered it under the already created heading. Creating a new heading was clearly an attempt to try and obscure the fact that IZAK did was not the first one who notified me. The only "edit" I did was to remove the redundant second heading, and turn the massive picture that was placed o my Talk page in to a thumbnail. No notification was ever removed. The edit history is there for anyone who wants to study it. --] 06:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::As I have already stated above, I do not deny informing ] first and then when turning to AladdinSE's page finding that Jmabel had gone "one step ahead of me" by a FEW MINUTES only (I guess a case of "great minds think alike".) Anyone is free to '''carefully''' look at my "Objection" above and look at the step-by-step report of each edit and notification and subsequent contributions to the notification process and its reasons/consequences. ] 07:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep''', lest we forget. ] 10:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep''', of course; name is less than ideal. — ] 11:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep'''. Please rename the file to make it clear that it is an example of anti-Semitism. ] 15:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
** '''K'''eep, most definitely encyclopedic, but please rename it NPOVish. ] | ] 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Must be renamed. --] 14:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep''' obviously needs to be renamed --] 16:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. In the immediate aftermath of World War II much of this material was banished from sight. This is a relatively inoffensive drawing (there many that were many that were much worse and therefore may be more representative of that historical period.) Listening to the BBC World Service over PRI on a Dallas radio station the other night, I learned that Henry Ford's ''The International Jew'' is openly on sale in 2005 next to Hitler's own book in Beirut. Therefore it is no small wonder that some very silly ideas are still floating around in the Middle East. After all, Henry Ford founded the American Ford Motor Car Company and Henry Ford was the only American to be singled out by Hitler in his book for praise: for his hatred of the Jews. In other words America is seen to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in the Middle East - supporting Israel and writing and publishing foundational antisemitic works. But Americans hardly ever hear this or know what it means. (When did you last read the books of Hitler and Ford?) So I believe that it good to keep such illustrations -providing that ORIGINAL captions are used with GOOD translations of the original. This keeps all of this in its historical and educational perspective. Censorship of any kind is anti-knowledge and the beginning road to the kind of horrors that the likes of Hitler and his mentor Henry Ford brought about by the Holocaust. The survival of Judaism as a belief proves that gas chambers and bullets cannot kill ideas and the survival of pathetic neo-Nazis proves that censorship only fosters more hate. Only open education (such as Misplaced Pages) can combat the evils that human beings conceive and try to put into practice, because open education is the light that illuminates the filth that must be cleaned up. However, to pretend that there never was any filth is absurd in and of itself. ] 16:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. Good example of virulent Nazi anti-Semitism. The way to combat anti-Semitism is not to hide it, but to shine a light on it. However, the image must be renamed something more NPOV. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' under npov name. Something like 'Antisemetic stereotype of Jews' ] 19:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep, but rename'''. The use of the image in an article on anti-Semitism is legitimate, but the name of the image could be considered offensive if taken in isolation (always a possibility with vandals). Rename it to indicate that it is an example of anti-Semitic propaganda. ] 21:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Neutral''' This page is intended for discussing images that are not in use or images that are obsolete. This image is in use and the use of this image should be discussed at ], not here. ] 19:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***'''Objection''': (1) The opening sentence of this page states: "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates '''or otherwise unneeded'''." It (and it's name as agreed upon above) is offensive and thus it is '''unneeded''' on Misplaced Pages. (2)This image is probably also "'''UE''' (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia" because it discriminates and promotes hate! ] 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
****'''Question''': I honestly did not understand IZAK's message. It made no sense at all to me. What was it referring to? As for the expanation and the caption on the illustration, it reads: "''An example of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's Der Giftpilz (The Toadstool or The Poisonous Mushroom) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm), Nuremberg, Stürmerverlag, 1938.) The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money."'' What is wrong with that? Obviously the illustration is of historic importance but what I don't get is that SOMEONE still claims COPYRIGHT of this crap! Now that is the story. Does this mean that someone legitimately bought the copyright or does it mean that heirs of the original copyright still claim copyright? Who are these Nazis or neo-Nazis? It is for all of these reasons that this rubbish needs to see light of day. FEAR always helps the oppressor! Daylight and education always makes fear disappear! ] 04:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***MPLX: when you say: "...The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money." What is wrong with that?..." is itself a huge problem that reveals great insensitivity to the ]. You also underestimate the guile of those who want to sneak-in ] into Misplaced Pages "under the radar" while hiding behind all sorts of lame "NPOV" arguments and excuses. There is no room for messages of hate on Misplaced Pages in whatever guise they may come to us. What is so hard to grasp about that? ] 04:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:IZAK: I did not say what you are suggesting that I said. I merely quoted the explanation for the orignal caption. The caption is historic and it was part of a culture that once existed in Germany. The explanation (which you did not quote), said: "''An example of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's Der Giftpilz (The Toadstool or The Poisonous Mushroom) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm), Nuremberg, Stürmerverlag, 1938.)''" Now I ask again, '''what is wrong with that?''' The caption is not new, it is the historic caption and to change it changes the historic nature of the cartoon. Censorship is wrong because what you censor today others (like the Nazis of old) are also able to censor, only what they would censor is not what you would censor. Freedom of speech and expression will alway destroy dictators. As for some idiots trying to "use" Misplaced Pages to spread hate, I don't think so. They have the wrong forum because 90% of the people here believe in freedom of speech. For hatemongers to succeed they have to find a dark little corner that they can control. Misplaced Pages is no dark little corner, it is a beacon of light. As such, when this cartoon is seen in the light of day 90% of the people will understand it for what it is. As for trying to stop hate, well forget it and you sure can't do that by censoring the 90%. Dictators thrive on censorship. Leave this cartoon alone with its original caption and 90% of the people will understand it for what it is. We have laws and police personnel to enforce them to protect freedom, and that is what protects us from the 10%. ] 22:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep/Rename.''' What Jayjg said. I have an authoritative (IDF Publishers) encyclopedia which has that image, and ones much, much worse. ] 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep but rename,''' and please watch the use of it...! -- ] 08:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep/Rename''' I cringe of revulsion every time I bump into those, but I must agree, exposing them in the right context is the way to fight it. ]←]←] 09:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep/Rename''' It must be renamed as a clear example of Nazi propoganda, but anti-Semitism should not be shoved under the carpet, it must be known as such. ] ]
**'''Keep/Rename''' Needed in order to remember the atrocities commited yet name should be changed do to the antisemitic nature of the name--] 20:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] - OB by ]. --] 15:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - OB by ]. --] 15:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] - OB by ]. --] 15:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ] and ] - UV, OR, Adam Carr images, not needed according to ] – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
*] - UE ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sup> 22:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
:'''Neutral'''. This image is linked from only a user page. Is there a standing Misplaced Pages policy on whether or not it is inappropriate for users to have nude photos on their user pages? ] 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::This was previously in the Charlotte Ross article itself. Check the edit history in the article. I have since reverted to another screencap (sans ass). '''Delete'''. ] 06:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', as ] mentions it is ONLY on MY user page. Therefore it's not a vandalism. -- ] 08:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***Dude, you placed it in the Charlotte Ross article. Don't lie; we can all look at the edit history. ] 09:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
*], (]), OR, ], ] 22:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===April 1===
*] OR ] 01:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] - OR UV - Based on cloud pattern, probably an Apollo 17 image. There are plenty of those ready for use. <s>Image also has no description page and displays an error message.</s> (] 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))
**'''Delete''' this highly offensive anti-Israel "caricature" ]ing '']'' that depicts the ] that Israel is the aggressive "shark" and that the Palestinians are poor little innocent "victims". This is raw pro-Arab ] and unfortunately fits the pattern of ]'s insertion of the offensive ] taken from the ]s, see vote for its deletion above (March 31). ] 06:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Delete''' I echo IZAK. This is complete propaganda, this does not merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Unlike ], this is modern media and cannot be seen as an ancient example of propaganda not extant anymore. It is not as easy to justify keeping it in Misplaced Pages as an "example" of the way Arabs feel toward the US and Israel. This is hate that is being spread now. It is not legitimte NPOV knowledge for an encyclopedia. ]]
**'''Keep'''. This image is in use in an article and is not an orphan nor meets the requirements for deletion. What's more it's inclusion in the article on the ] was subject to extensive consensus in ]. --] 06:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
***'''Objections''': This image too, cearly qualifies for deletion because: (1) The opening sentence of this page states: "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates '''or otherwise unneeded'''." It is ] and thus it is '''unneeded''' on Misplaced Pages. (2)This image is probably also "'''UE''' (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia" because it discriminates and promotes ]! ] 07:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***I doubt that you'll garner much support for this extraordinary theory. I wish you'd carefully read what other Wikipedians are telling you in response to these misplaced and fevered displays of self-righteousness.--] 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
****Aladdin: Kindly avoid your tone of condescension. When someone -- anyone -- introduces highly objectionable ] images or information on Misplaced Pages, no matter what the context, and that any decent human being would find objectionable, it MUST be examined and evaluated regardless of "public opinion" (which is not always sensitive enough to the ] under various circumstances, as history has shown, right?) It is nothing to pooh-pooh about. '''I ''am'' reading what other Wikipedians are saying, but at the same time, I am now keeping a rather careful eye on what ''you'' are doing and the way you are going about doing things here at Misplaced Pages'''. I hope that over the course of time, your motives will be proven to be as "pure" as you make them appear to be! ] 09:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***** It is quite futile to contend further. My own words fall on deaf ears. Instead I will quote ]: "I think that you need to get a little less touchy about the contributions of others, and focus more on what you can add to Misplaced Pages." Still, watch me all you please, I am not in the least perturbed. --] 09:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. This image is included in an article on the Arab-Israeli conflict to illustrate views that are widespread in the Arab world. Offensive as these views may be to Americans and Israelis, including them as a POV specifically attributed to one of the parties in the conflict does not mean that the image should be deleted or that the article itself violates NPOV. With all due respect, IZAK, I think that you need to get a little less touchy about the contributions of others, and focus more on what you can add to Misplaced Pages. We do no one any good by burying offensive views under a rock. ] 07:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep'''. Less bigotry and more positive contributions would be good. ] 07:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Del'''. We should not spread hatred as a legitimate encyclopedic knowledge. Unless clearly marked as a ], representing one party as a cuddly boy-victim and another as a child-eating shark is unacceptable. BTW, what is its source/date/license? ]←]←] 09:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:** Deleting the image won't change the fact that a significant number of Arabs (and quite a few Europeans, as well) feel that way. Including political cartoons that reflect a widespread viewpoint on one side, and clearly attributing such as the view of that side and not as objective fact, is perfectly legitimate. If someone wants to include a political cartoon showing the Israeli and/or American POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then they should do so, after appropriate discussion. I also don't agree that this image constitues a blood libel. Criticizing the actions of the State of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, although it has often been used as a cover for anti-Semitism. ] 10:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::* Sorry we disagree here. There is a red line between political cartoon and propaganda of hate. You may convince me if you find an image that is even remotely close to devouring children for any other country listed in ]. I don't mind criticism of Israel's action or policies (it's everyone's hobby, including myself), but this looks more like those allegations of the IDF using DU ammo, booby-trapping toys, eradiating people at checkpoints, ], etc. - too many to even list here. ]←]←] 11:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::* Okay, what I'm about to say is a tad off-topic and inflamatory, but I can't resist. Humus, would you consider ] "an image that is even remotely close to devouring children" regarding a military occupation? – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::::* Of course not. My objection is not to the claim that this cartoon reflects public sentiment in some circles, but to the fact that it carries emotional charge dehumanizing Jews. Let's keep in mind that public sentiment can be ] by inflammatory pictures. ]←]←] 21:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::* Hmm. There must be some error in the database, which claims (no doubt slanderously) that '''Humus sapiens''' uploaded ] and ]. - ] 09:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', agree with Firebug. --] 11:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete.''' There's no question that the vast majority of Arabs feels that politics of the USA are pro-Israeli, but this sketch also demonizes Israel, depicting it as a shark, so it serves more than its alleged purpose. I'd also like to ask the uploader what's the source of this (ugly) caricature, as he/she seems to have a collection of such items. ] 14:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete.''' Does describe a political idea yet is very Anti-American/Israeli in nature. Yes it is a reality yet I believe it is very offensive to many people who disagree with the image's political attitude to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.--] 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Question''': Aladdin, what's the source of the image, and why do you think it's in the public domain? – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 15:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
*** Please refer to the extensive ] section in which source, relevancy and other matters were discussed at length. The picture, and the inclusion in the article, was agreed to ''in Talk''. --] 18:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
**** That wasn't a particularly helpful answer. After spending far too long reading through the talk, I find that the only mention of source is your contention that it "was released into free public internet circulation by a Diaspora Palestinian artist." You haven't said who the artist is, or offered any link or evidence that you didn't simply scan it from a book or get it off the Internet. I would tend to agree with Humus Sapien's characterization of it as a "cartoon of unknown origin and date". Unless you provide better source information, it'll probably listed on ] next, if it survives the IFD process. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete'''. I strongly believe there is use for dehumanizing images - just like the Nazi image - if presented in a neutral framework, for example to illustrate extremism in the press. However, since it is used only for a different purpose - to strengthen a POV, I believe it should be removed. ] 22:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep''' The image is not anti-semitic, it is just a cartoon that demonstrates a humorous way of looking at the pro-arab side of the conflict. No-one is denying that the cartoon is biased, but its inclusion in an article is perfectly fair. If there needs to be more explanation in the caption of the picture to make it more fair, then that should be done.] 00:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Delete'''. --] 09:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** '''Keep'''. No valid reason for deletion has even been offered. Precedents include ], ], and indeed ]; if this is deleted as "propaganda", so should those be. - ] 09:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*** PS: This image excellently illustrates the POV that it was being used to illustrate, and most certainly does not constitute a "blood libel". Levying accusations of "blood libel" against a cartoon which is very clearly anti-Israeli and makes no allusion at all to Jews or Judaism is a great example of the political overuse of the accusation of anti-Semitism of which ] eloquently ]. - ] 10:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*As it stands for now, I find that this picture serves a propogandist role in the article. Principally, the thumb as well as the image caption is highly lacking.
1. The reader can't tell from the thumb that half of the Palestinian's torso and two of his limbs had been ripped apart —in the teeth does not (yet) mean getting ripped apart by them— in terms of the reader's expectation for graphic violence.
2. Once the reader clicks on the thumb and sees the pic, s/he is then faced with an equally inadequate caption. It needs to mention the country of origin, the newspaper, the date and year; licensing notwithstanding, it just dosen't strike me as particularly professional to ommit these details, for such an article.
3. a. Jews and Israelis (henceforth, I/J) are often rather interchangable in Arab cartoons – in that sense, Bauer is right. Because the identifying symbol, the star of david, has been used to identify Jews in drawings before the State of Israel was founded, whereas post-1948, it is depicted at the centre of its flag.
b. While necessary to the pun, note that the Arab crowed, the American, and the Palestinian are human, whereas the I/J is a beast. It is perhaps noteworthy that the American, also the enemy, is not portrayed in such unflattering terms. The I/J beast itself here is tame-''looking'', though the suffering of the victim, again, particularly graphic. (examples of I/J as non-beast but graphic victimization: ; example of more demonic I/J beasts but mild victimization: , , ).
4. I'm rather puzzled that this article has only two pics (aside from maps) in it, both Arab newspaper cartoons critical of Israel. I'm surprised there aren't any real photos, plural (not just an Israeli cartoon to counterbalance).
It is an illustrative illustration, but it lacks all these qualifications (and varifications) which can be arrived at through consensus, qualifications which can be linked, too. If my opinion matters, one of the editors who is in favour of it being kept, would take it out of the article until such consensus as per presentation could be established. Then I'll vote Keep. Otherwise, its placement as such is propagandist, so, in the interim (hopefuly). I am voting '''Delete'''.
P.S. I wish this could be discussed somewhere else — I hate the IfD board most of all, it is so scrolly, these IfDs should get their own page, it is impractical to have the IfD set this way, with 1% of entries taking such a huge amount of space. ] 12:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep''', of course. ] 10:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
*] Forgot to put a decent name on my upload. Sorry- Good one is ]. --] 07:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] - '''CV''', see http://www.headington.org.uk/history/misc/shark.htm. Replaced by ] which was already on wikipedia. -- ] 10:51, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
*], obsoleted by ] in the correct color and much larger. --] (]) 15:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* ] - UV, and ] couldn't find the source. Replaced with ]. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 15:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
* ] - reproducing a long poem is not fair use, but reproducing a few lines is. I replaced it with ], cropped and converted. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
*] OR,] (Was listed as a CSD) ] 17:35, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by ], ] 17:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by in Commons. - ] 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by ] - ] 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by in Commons - ] 20:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*]. Image illustrating an article which has been listed for VfD, which the poster agrees should be deleted. ]] 21:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
*], OB and Orphaned, since no ribbon was issued for this medal. ] 23:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OB and Orphaned, due to the same reasons as ]. ] 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Note, I uploaded both this and Heroru_rib.png.)
*], (]), UE UV - no image should have "wikipedia.com" on it, methinks. --] 23:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Object'''. The "wikipedia.com" was easy enough to fix; that's what the "rev" link is for. And it isn't an orphan. ] | ] 02:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
===April 2===
*], same as above image + OR, ] 01:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] - moved from vfd. —] (]) 00:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) Original comment there: ''April 1st stupid political vandalism. Original image (http://www.fpabramo.org.br/memoria/trajetorias/imagens/Tp0307com.jpg): ] arrested by the Brazilian Military Dictatorship. Written in Portuguese: ''Lula there... Very far from the government''. This image was used in the vandalism of Lula's article. ] 00:23 (UTC)''
*], OR. It's the second version of ]. ] | ] 02:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OR. It's not being used anymore.
** At 02:55, 2 Apr 2005, ] forgot to type 4 ~s. ] | ] 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] unused fairuse. ] | ] 03:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR, UE. ] | ] 03:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] UE. This isn't a fair use. ] | ] 03:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:* It seems to fall clearly within the parody/satire portion of the fair use doctrine. ] 04:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:**This images was used for the Misplaced Pages April Fools Joke this year. My vote is to '''keep.''' ] 04:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], OB by in Commons. - ] 03:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OB Image has been replaced by the correctly named image of Patrice Newell. This image refers to ''Patricia'' Newell which is an incorrect name. --] 04:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR & UE – ] 04:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR & UE – ] 04:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR – ] 04:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR, OB by higher resolution ]. ] | ] 05:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*], moved from ]. —] (]) 07:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) Original comment by anon user ]: ''probably illegal use.''
**'''Comment'''. This is a picture of the banknote so I've added ]. ]∴] 07:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. ] has announce such a law is planning, in which may contain a statement requires people who wants to use RMB pattern on the Internet must report the Bank first, or may be penalty up to RMB$ 30,000 (~ US$ 3,650).
:**Since the Misplaced Pages servers are located in the United States, not China, I don't think China's laws are relevant here. How would any such claims be enforced? Some images on Misplaced Pages certainly violate the laws of Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. So what? ] 10:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*] OR UV. ], which included this image, has just been deleted by ]. --]|] 12:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== End ==
<!-- Remember ALWAYS to alert the uploader of image via their talk page -->
<!-- Tell them their image may soon be deleted. You can use {{idw}} if you like. -->
<!-- Don't edit below this line, except to add categories and interwiki links. -->
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Misplaced Pages), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Misplaced Pages, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Misplaced Pages; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2025 January 9}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2025 January 9}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Misplaced Pages.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Misplaced Pages's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Misplaced Pages:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image was uploaded by one user without license/FUR. Another image was uploaded over it by another user. FUR was probably copied from this image. Because the photographer is a user who is not in the file's modification history. FUR in the "Author" and "Source" sections contradicts itself. 1-2 images were uploaded over it by a third user. FUR was not modified. The image, according to WP:FREER (3D), WP:NFCC#10a and c:COM:PCP, should be deleted. — Ирука 03:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, Iruka13 has absolutely no understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. There is a consensus that in articles about music singles it is acceptable to use the cover art for each version.--Sanslogique (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no such link (or maybe there is), because the consensus is based on common usage practices. A lot of articles use multiple images of singles, if that doesn't suit you, you can start a discussion about it so that only one remains, at the top of the page.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No. I agree that you should start a discussion about removing single covers from other articles if you are not satisfied with the current consensus. Otherwise, I will regard your edits as vandalism.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep – Two versions became hits in the same year, 1961. One topped in two countries; this (other) topped in two other countries. Hard to tell which version is more prominent than the other. Oh, and an amount of sentences isn't a sufficient indicator/measurement of "contextual significance". Rather two versions were equally and locally successful, and neither is more prominent than the other, so deleting this cover art and keeping the other wouldn't be wise, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep and delete File:AmityUni-logo.png: This is a free-use image, limited to 100,000 dots. In this version, nearly the entire image (aside from some whitespace) is dedicated to displaying the seal. In contrast, the alternative version uses less than 30% of the image for the seal, with the remainder duplicating the text "Amity University," which is already present on the seal itself. Muhandes (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).
It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
There are now three images (since the one directly below is deleted). They all serve different purposes: (1) cover, (2) gameplay, and (3) this specific image which is the only item to provide a comparative commentary between novel and game, meeting the non-free content criteria. And should therefore be kept. And what you say is not a sufficient argument otherwise, as the two other images do not share this function. --Cold Season (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
My first FfD so apologizes in advanced I believe this fails NFC8 as it adds little context. The in article caption states that it depicts Dexter finding a body he previously disposed off while the image is simply Dexter standing around. It is unclear what he's doing Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi I uploaded the photo.
Dexter is in shock after finding a body he dumped in an ocean laying on a table.
The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.
Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.
The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.
Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.
Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I decided this because I saw several similar images in your contribution - unlike this one, the source of those images is only other images, although the file description says that you are their author. And also because of the lack of metadata. And, of course, when comparing the images as such.
Please provide a link to the discussion in which the image was accepted.
Keep – I appreciate your intentions, but I think the title card would be more suitable for other wikis that don't allow non-free content, like probably German Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, the single cover art itself is too irreplaceable to be replaced by freer alternatives. Also, the title card alone might not help readers sufficiently be associated with the song. The "Word Crimes" title card is used primarily because no cover art for (supposed) single release has existed to this date. Couldn't find the physical single release of "Word Crimes" on eBay or Discogs to this date. Couldn't find the digital single release on iTunes Store or Spotify or any other music streaming service to this date. George Ho (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I dunno whether I'd like to upload a (non-free) title card of the lyric video. Sometimes, if there's no suitable free alternative, a "no image" approach/option would've been safer than a potentially omissible/deletable non-free image, but I guess certain editors believe that readers would potentially understand a non-free content's contextual significance to the topic in question. I thought about nominating the title card for "discussion", but I'd like your response first. Re-reading MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, I'm uncertain whether a non-free title card complies with the guideline, especially #4 of its rule #1. George Ho (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. It is not necessary to replace the official single cover in the infobox of the article. This applies for all articles about singles, if an official cover is available (i.e. not simply the cover of the album it originates from). TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep What? Did you really upload your own title card file just so you can nominate this for deletion? This is the single cover. If there is one, then that should be used. Like George mentioned, the Weird Al one is only replaced with a title card since there is no single cover. This is literally the single cover. Why would anyone replace it with a title card? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCC#1, on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The cover art is used purely to identify the song; the cover art itself is not the subject of critical commentary. The title card fulfills the same purpose of identifying the song as the cover art; thus, the latter should be deleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Why does "critical commentary" matter when the cover art already contextualizes its significance to or association with the song? Readers would see the cover art and then realize its officiality and branding to the song. Without the cover art, readers would be misled into thinking that any unsuitable alternative is "suitable" replacement to the one you're nominating now. Furthermore, look at the votes so far, and tell me that the majority is mistaken, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It also says that it has to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Are you really going to sit here and tell me the title card from the lyric video has the same encyclopedic value as the single cover? What purpose does the title card even serve when nobody has seen that before, compared to the single cover which was used on streaming services? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Screenshot's contextual significance to the whole song or the whole music video questionable. Illustrates a scene, but doubtful that it contextually signifies the subject of discussion. Also, doubtful that omitting this image would affect the understanding of the topic that can be already understood when reading the whole article. Furthermore, there's a free image of the actor who appeared in the music video. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
According to WP:NFCC#10b, the image license should be changed to {{Non-free 3D art}}. A photographer's license must also be added.
The design of the object in the photo is over 120 years old and is in the public domain. Hundreds of such objects have been released over 120+ years; the society is still active, which means they are still being released. Thus, it is more than possible to make a free photo of the object. According to WP:NFCC#1, the image should be deleted. — Ирука 10:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - Placement in the infobox as the group's graphical identifier supersedes the placement guidelines cited above. (MOS:SECTIONLOC, Template:Infobox fraternity/doc and WP:NFCC#10с). Sure, if we had a crest, we'd properly move the image, in smaller format, to the subsection where it is described. But in this case, we've found no suitable printed crest or logo, and are using this image of a PD 3D pin as the organization's identifier. There is no commercial value to this image, nor does its use harm the entity's commercial usage. Also per the above, I have adjusted the image license. Jax MN (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: There is no known logo or crest for this society, making the badge the primary organizational symbols. (The article linked through the photograph description also states that this is the organization's symbol). While you can assume that many such badges have been released making it easy to take a free photo, we have no proof of this theory. This is because the rituals and practices of the organization are tightly held secrets. For example, this badge could only be awarded as a special honor, a prize, or to retiring presidents--making it much scarcer than you suggest. We also do not know that this badge design is 120 years old and in public domain; the badge in the article was issued in 1936 or 89 years ago. Both historic and modern books about this organization do not include a photo or illustration of the badge and no known badges have been available for sale through venors who specialize this fraternal badges, despite the fact that there are people who activiely try to find out more about this and other such Ivy League secret societies. As noted in its linked source, this badge was only available to be photographed because it was stolen from a member. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation that someone else could take a free photo of this official society symbol. As noted by @Jax MN, there is no commercial value to the image. In contrast, sharing this photo and providing a link to the original article promotes and provides benefit to the nonprofit organization who originally took and shared the photograph. 17:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep – The digital/streaming release's cover art is more provocative and more revealing than the CD/vinyl one. Omit this (CD/vinyl) cover art, and you'd be left with the more provocative and revealing cover art. Furthermore, neither CD nor vinyl is a dead format (yet), despite their lack of prominence compared to their own heydays.
Also, it's not like Rebel Heart, whose main artwork shows the musician's/artist's face wrapped in wires and is less provocative and revealing than this (other) album's. Well, it's not like Love for Sale (Boney M. album) either, which has critical commentary. I even nominated its alternative cover to FFD just once, and the result was "kept". Nonetheless, even artworks lacking critical commentary may still be contextually significant to the album and its releases/editions. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, so you want to delete this file because it doesn't contain any logos, but VENUS original cover has no logos, then you want to delete that too? Camilasdandelions (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if we assume that the photo was taken in 1980, published without a copyright statement, it is still not free in the US as WP:URAA. — Ирука 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-free image being used in Mary Jane Veloso drug smuggling case#Stay of execution in a way that fails to meet WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). A non-free photo showing former Philippine president Benigno Aquino III phoning the Indonesian foreign minister doesn't really need to be seen by readers just to illustrate such a call happened since the encyclopedic significance of the call can be more than easily understood from reliably sourced textual content. The call itself might have been an historic event in a sense, but images of it being made aren't necessarily historic as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. If this particular photo itself was at the time or has since been the subject of sourced critical commentary of the phone call, then perhaps its non-free use would meet NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 if reliably sourced content related to such commentary about the photo of the call is added to the article; otherwise, readers of the article can more than sufficiently understand the sentence "Aquino went as far as to break diplomatic protocol by directly making a phone call to Indonesian foreign minister Retno Marsudi using a burner phone on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia hours before Veloso's scheduled execution." without seeing this or any other non-free photo of the call, -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
We already have a free image of Routh. The flags seem de minimis, and without them I'd have no idea this was a Ukraine protest. EF02:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8. There are other free images of Routh on Commons. The only text related to this image is the sentence "Routh was filmed at an April 2022 protest in Independence Square in Kyiv", which is easily understood through text alone. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As the person who uploaded the high quality image, if my opinion means anything, agree with this. Reading through that page and having a cursory glance at Copyright law abd such, I think that we cannot confirm the image was published early enough to be in the public domain.
Firstly, this is not a simple photograph: people are posing. Secondly, there is no evidence that it was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no copyright notice on the postcard. This means that the photo entered the public domain in the United States immediately when the postcard was published, unless it had already previously entered the public domain. Assuming that Italy was the country of first publication, the photo was in the public domain in the source country in 1996, so the photo's United States copyright status is either {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (if published before 1930) or {{PD-URAA}} (if published in 1930 or later). In either case, it's in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
As this is a 3D photo of a book, we probably need permission from the photographer.
The first UK edition of this book is in the public domain in the US as it was published before 1929. However, the article uses the image caption First US edition. As it is not known if the first UK edition and the first US edition used the same covers or when the first US edition was published, it is unclear if this cover is in the public domain in the US. If the US cover is copyrighted, the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by the cover of the first UK edition.
The text of the book is in the public domain in the UK as the author died more than 70 years ago. However, Misplaced Pages does not disclose who the cover artist is (maybe it says in the book), so the cover's copyright status in the UK remains unknown. In Special:Diff/1223558859, User:Wiiformii added {{subst:Out of copyright in|2025}}, claiming that the Author died in 1954, but as the user didn't disclose who the cover artist is, this information is unverifiable. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't well versed in the rules when I added that and I used the death of the writer not the artist, I agree with your ideas though as it truly isn't a 2d scan and is not even guaranteed to be in the public domain in the UK although it is in America as you said as it was published before January 1, 1930. Wiiformii (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
You always need to wait until the artist has been dead for at least 70 years.
In some cases, the cover art is a derivative work of the text. In this situation, you have to wait until both the artist and the writer have been dead for 70 years. However, in some cases the cover artist doesn't take any copyrightable elements from the text, and then you only need to consider the cover artist. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure. Regarding US copyright, I doubt the 3D photo contains any more originality than a 2D scan. But I agree the UK copyright is too unclear to move to Commons. Wikiacc (¶) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a flat scan. Scans are undeniably below the TOO for their own copyright, while the 3D image (lighting, etc.) gets much dicier. As the item is free in the US as of January 1st, this would allow us to keep a local scan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure which license would be appropriate. If you have any idea please let me know. Coldcreation (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the visual design of box set in the article is not described in terms of reliable sources, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). In addition, this three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. — Ирука 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The photograph of the box set is clearly done by the publisher that owns the copyright to the box set and cover art (as part of the promotional material to send out the box art), so there is not a separate copyright, so the FREER argument falls apart. Once you clear that, then the other arguments for delete fall apart - the 3d photograph will have the same copyright burden as the 2d cover. Masem (t) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if this image is indeed made by the copyright holder, according to WP:NFC#UUI#16 we should not use it.
From your answer I still don't understand why we need to use a 3D image of the box set and its contents if a 2D image of the front of the box is sufficient for identification. — Ирука 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The source page does not actually say if it was published in 1929 or not, so it could still be copyrighted. Also, as the source is the BBC, the photo, if published, could have been published first in the UK, in which case it would at best be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} instead of {{PD-US}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: This short sound clip of We Built This City is a portion of the song's refrain. It meets the contextual significance criterion defined in WP:NFC#CS because it allows the reader to identify the song that is subject of discussion in the article. Literally, the title of the song, We Built This City, is sung throughout the clip. It is not simply a song demonstration — it is a portion of the song that defines the work. - tucoxn\ 13:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Was previously identified as "free" without any justification; 1933 films don't become PD in the US until 2029. Currently used only in a cast list, and thus it does not meet the non-free criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: harmless; useful for identification; and usefully gives a sense of the feel of the series. However, usefulness is something to be careful to argue about. So is "harmless". Neither usefulness nor harmlessness is an excuse for the DVD covers' potential failure to comply with NFCC. Sure, there are actors in the covers, but I don't see how they add anything to understanding, i.e. contextually signify, the short-lived TV parodical series. Also, treating individual seasons/series as if they are individually notable may insufficently justify use of the DVD covers... unless we wanna be consistent with other articles using DVD covers? So far as I can see, very few or no articles use DVD covers as separate from title cards or title logos for TV series articles. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It's the original album cover before it got reissued, so I think it can be kept on the page. I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. Statik N (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
~I don't see why it should be deleted. It does show more of the artwork and how the song titles are written. Removing it is unnecessary. Statik N (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Fails the unreplaceable criteria. The specific NZLAV used in the siege is not required understanding and I've replaced the image in the article with a free version of an NZLAV. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===January 9===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+2%23File%3ATaylor+Swift+-+Love+Story+%28music+video+screenshot%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+2%23File%3AZara+Larsson+-+VENUS+%28Vinyl+Cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+3%23File%3AAndr%C3%A9+Derain%2C+1907+%28Automne%29%2C+Nu+debout%2C+limestone%2C+95+x+33+x+17+cm%2C+Mus%C3%A9e+National+d%26%2339%3BArt+Moderne.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+8%23File%3AStaind+-+Tormented+%28back+cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
