Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 1[edit]

File:Greg-brockman-20150611.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be out of scope. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Brockman. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Shows classical trisection of angle solution.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This depicts a false and bogus mathematical construction, and is usable only to introduce original research into Wikipedia. It is a proven mathematical fact that nothing like this can work. More, this particular construction is affine-invariant and angle trisection is not, so it does not work. And specifically, when the angle to be trisected approaches zero, the proportions of the three parts approach 1/2 – 0 – 1/2 instead of remaining near 1/3 – 1/3 – 1/3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crackpot mathematics has no encyclopedic content. Ozob (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly made-up nonsense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are thousands of these crackpot constructions, none of any value and this one is not even a good approximation. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite aside from the well known theorem that shows that no trisection of this kind can work (which is not easy to prove from scratch, and laborious even to read through and understand) I tried applying this to one special case: a right angle. The result was an angle whose tangent is 1/2, whereas what would be needed is an angle whose sine, rather than its tangent, is 1/2. In other words, this is easily seen to be mathematically incorrect even without citing a theorem that is not so easy to prove. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps the simplest reductio ad absurdism is an angle of very close to 180 degrees, which is divided into two very small angles by this procedure, plus one that is nearly the whole. Sławomir
Biały 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh If it were a "classical" "trisection" method, then it would be appropriate, even if pseudomathematics. If I haven't made a mistake, it's trisecting the chord, which is a good approximation for small angles, contrary to the nominator's assertion, although obviously not exact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is entirely possible that I miscalculated, although I don't think it matters to the discussion. But even if it were a classical piece of crankery rather than a new one (I have no idea, not having made a careful study of incorrect angle trisections) the pieces of text on the figure implying that it is correct and new would still make it inappropriate here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alternatively rename and relabel it. In it current form it is misleading and hence not acceptable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Swift Knight 008.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Achinihu/new article name here Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NaziPenis.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope and lacking permission (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal Gestapo). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FalconCast Studios Icon.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo for deleted article Magog the Ogre (t • c) 07:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ES Glory-Cover.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of non-free image. It is used for a primarily decorative purpose in the article on the band, and fails the NFCC's contextual significance clause. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ES Christmas-Cover.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of non-free image. It is used for a primarily decorative purpose in the article on the band, and fails the NFCC's contextual significance clause. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:The Dress (viral phenomenon).png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. If this isn't valid for fair use, nothing is. --B (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyright photo and according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35073088 the authors are going to start asserting their rights. Fair use seems debatable because there are commercial aspects to this and it would be possible for us to create an equivalent image showing the optical effect. Amending the original image to change its size seems unhelpful because it is then no longer the original image file which caused the fuss and any distortion risks spoiling the effect. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, ALL fair-use photos are copyright. The image could not be recreated given that the article that uses it is explicitly about "the dress". There is no need to resize it as it is of an acceptable fair-use size already. A valid fair-use rationale was provided at the time. As for commercial aspects, the image has been spread all over the Internet already in many different sizes including plenty that are much larger than this one. Accordingly, it seems to me that all the suggested grounds for deletion fail, if such a thing as fair-use has any continuing place in the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it is obviously being hosted here as a fair use image, and is correctly attributing the author, as written, Wikipedia's own rules for hosting such things do seem to being violated - "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." It is clear from the BBC piece above that the couple want to make as much money as they can from licensing the image for re-use (although it's debatable if that ship has now sailed given how many copies must be out there now), and so it seems quite unethical for Wikipedia to be allowing people such easy access to it here, even at reduced size (since, as I understand it, the phenomena works at any size). That would seem to trump the fair use argument that it needs to be seen because the article is solely about what it looks like. Maybe if Wikipedia didn't have an explicit rule mentioning commercial rights it might be different, but it does. I note that the BBC story deliberately avoids including the image, which suggests they took the view that including it as fair use wasn't appropriate, and that otherwise paying for it wasn't worth it. In addition, regarding "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.", there is certainly enough information here for someone to be able to replicate the effect in another photo, should they want to give that away to Wikipedia to use as an illustration (suitably annotated to make it clear it's not the original photo, of course). TD 678 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is being missed in TD 678's explanation is that the article is not about the illusion in general, but specifically about "the dress" and the effect it caused, both in terms of discussion and illusion. That can only be illustrated by the image itself, so there is and can be no free equivalent in this case. As for commercial opportunities, they cannot in this case rely on there being no other copies out there - there are many, and will remain so whether we take ours down or not, and indeed whether the owners make a vain attempt to silence the many other websites which have higher-resolution copies. A book or film would certainly show not only a high-resolution image but the image's takers, the scene, the dress itself. A low-res copy frankly does not impinge on that, except possibly to increase awareness of the curious tale, which might be beneficial to any future commercial opportunity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is specifically about illusion created by this photograph of the dress. This is not replaceable by any means. — ξ ^xplicit 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think our Charlie Hebdo shooting article is a good example of the reasoning to keep the photo. The article includes an image of one of the magazine covers. It's use as an illustration for the purpose of article overrides the consideration of current or future business concerns of the author. Rybkovich (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a difficult case. Respect for commercial opportunities clearly suggests deletion. Transformational usage (commentary on the image itself) may support retention. While the original posting of the photograph was not for commercial purposes, it was the copyright holder's actions and her daughter's (arguably her agent or licensee) who first created the interest and the market opportunity for the photograph and we are here presented with clear evidence of the copyright holder's intention to exploit that market. As an initial point, it is no defense against infringement to argue that because other unlicensed copies exist that our use is harmless or otherwise protected. The strongest argument that can be made is that our use is transformational, a fair use principle that is not directly reflected in our non-free content policy (WP:NFCP) by name as far as I am able to determine but which is reflected in our several examples where we may still use a copyrighted image even where market impact is assumed but where the image itself has been the subject of sourced commentary. (e.g. WP:NFC#UUI §7). The potential problem with this argument is that it was the copyright holder's daughter who first started commenting on the optical illusion/paradox and the media did little to "transform" the usage, at least until articles started trying to explain the phenomenon. Whether such explanation is transformational enough is an open question. For a good article examining the issues in the context of U.S. fair use law, see Can I Use this Photo I Found on Facebook? Applying Copyright Law and Fair Use Analysis to Photographs on Social Networking Sites Republished for News Reporting Purposes, with the caveat that the analysis is predicated on the news usage being for commercial purposes, another fair use principle that is not directly reflected in our non-free policy by name as far as I am able to determine. In a purely legal fair use analysis under U.S. law I would argue that the non-commercial nature of our usage combined with the transformational nature of scientific commentary on the reasons for the optical illusion in the image supports fair use. Whether this constitutes allowable non-free use under our policy is less clear to me. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best guidance on how much narrower our non-free policy must be than what is allowed by fair use comes from the Wikimedia Foundation resolution authorizing such policies: Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Section 3 of the policy provides: "Such EDPs [non-free usage policies] must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." An "historically significant event" is not defined within the resolution. At first glance one might dismiss offhand the idea that the image of a dress being discussed on the internet is "historically significant". It may not be so in the same fashion that the image of tank man is historically significant, but there is an argument that the phenomenon has been significant in identifying differences in color perception among people. See Striking individual differences in color perception uncovered by ‘the dress’ photograph (cited in the article). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our non-free usage policy largely appears to accomodate the transformative usage principle of fair use at the level of market role definition: thus Wikipedia:NFCC#2's language regarding avoiding usage "likely to replace the original market role" (emphasis added) where a different market role can be created by substantive sourced commentary on the image. In this instance, those markets can be conceived as an original market in demonstrating and commenting upon a fascinating visual phenomenon and a second market in scientific, educational explanation of how this particular photograph and its presentation leads to such opposing interpretations. By such analysis, it would be illegitimate for us to use this photograph in its original role to demonstrate the effect whereas it may be legitimate to use it for this second educational purpose of explaining it. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In accordance with all my commentary above (perhaps TL;DR), in my opinion, the inclusion of a low-resolution version of this specific image in this article is an educational aid to our readers in understanding reliably sourced commentary in the article about how viewing this specific image helped reveal widespread differences in color perception among people. Both fair use analysis in U.S. copyright law and our non-free usage policy support such non-commercial educational usage. As always, and as is said in our license tags, "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:98.7 DZFE.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The threshold of originality for the home country is not known. — ξ ^xplicit 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible non-free element here is the musical note, and I'm not sure even that exceeds TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly modified tuplet is very standard element; I'd be inclined "not original enough" as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Albertparkcollege.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Australia's threshold of originality is very low. — ξ ^xplicit 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no elements here to suggest a non-free status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious textlogo, yes.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Flames Honoured Numbers.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That file has existed since 2014. You're questioning it now? MTG1989 ^talk 23:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The use is questioned as soon as the file is discovered. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.