Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image:Kanuga.jpg
- - uploaded by Deaghaidhcjjd (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, low quality, data is much better represented as the text ᎧᏄᎦ —Remember the dot (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's already on commons (it will show through), and your large text shows up as '???' for me. ~ BigrTex 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably using Windows XP, which requires you to install a Cherokee font in order to view the characters. Windows Vista and Max OS X have support for Cherokee built in, and I'm sure many Linux distributions do the same. If we replaced every character that Windows XP users couldn't see with an image, it would be a nightmare. Take the article Japanese writing system, for example. It would be hideous if images were used in place of characters throughout the article. It is the user's responsibility to install foreign script support in order to view foregin characters.
- On Windows XP, you can improve your ability to view foreign characters by installing some additional operating system files. Go to Control Panel, open Regional and Language Options, and on the Languages tab check "Install files for complex scripts and right-to-left languages (including Thai)" and "Install files for East Asian languages". Then click OK, and once installation is complete you should be able to see many more characters, though you will still need to find a Cherokee font to see Cherokee characters. This article on the Cherokee Wikipedia might help. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schwa IPA symbol.png
- Raster image is not used or needed as this letter can be represented in text as ə —Remember the dot (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already on commons (will show through) ~ BigrTex 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, although SVG would be better. Compare with Image:Latin alphabet Aa.png. --Quuxplusone 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Python add5 syntax.png
- - uploaded by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned because Image:Python add5 syntax.svg made this image obsolete. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I created the PNG version, and the SVG indeed looks like it has the same content. However, given that SVG support is less widespread than PNG support is, I think I disagree with the idea of deleting the image. I don't see what is gained by taking a few bytes out of the WP database: someone might want to utilize the PNG version for some other downstream project, even if current articles reference PNG. LotLE×talk 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Users can easily use the sandbox to render an SVG as a PNG of whatever size they wish. We vectorize images so that they can be rendered whatever resolution is needed without loss of quality. SVG is a web standard, supported by Firefox, Inkscape, OpenOffice.org Draw, the GIMP, and others.
- Because the W3C rejected Microsoft's VML format and instead combined VML and PGML into SVG, Microsoft has refused to support SVG. So, developers can use VML if they want vector graphics in Internet Explorer, or they can use SVG if they want vector graphics in any other browser. The result has been a notable lack of vector graphics on the web.
- It's a sad tale of Microsoft using their dominance in the market to extinguish the competition even at the cost of providing inferior services to their customers. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- If there is now a policy about maintaining the vector graphics in preference to the raster ones, so be it (I've been inactive on WP lately, especially in administrative stuff). The auto-conversion in MediaWiki is cool indeed. I just wonder whether things like archives of the DB copied to handhelds will be as happy with those formats. But that's not at all specific to this image I created (actually, a lot of others I did are much more vector oriented at heart). LotLE×talk 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please take a look at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload, which recommends SVG over PNG.
-
-
-
- There shouldn't be a problem with browsing Wikipedia from a handheld because modern handhelds should be able to view PNG images without trouble. If there's a handheld out there that runs Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if it supports SVG too.
-
-
-
- I hope that someday SVG support will be a standard feature of web browsers, though without Microsoft's blessing this may take quite a while. If SVG support was standard then there wouldn't be any problem at all with our use of SVGs. Maybe Microsoft will see the light... —Remember the dot (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Image:Smallcaps.png
- - uploaded by Quuxplusone (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned because text is better represented inline than as an image. It's more accessible, takes less time to download, etc. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Very few browsers implement small caps correctly. I've reverted your change to Small caps because it doesn't render correctly in Firefox, for example; but please think of the poor Lynx users! (That's half-tongue-in-cheek, because we all know that everybody uses IE7 these days... but one of our goals is maximum accessibility, so we shouldn't assume that everybody uses a CSS-capable graphical browser.) Anyway, the discussion of how best to convey "Small caps looks like this" is a question of article content, and belongs on Talk:Small caps. You'll find that there's some discussion of CSS there already.
- Keep - we can't assume the user agent will render the text exactly as we want. Even w3c uses images when describing fonts [1]. --Abu badali (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rickett.jpg
[edit] Image:IMG 0352.JPG
- - uploaded by WVSUGolfer1 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:OurChalet.jpg
- Does not qualify under fair use as it is easily replaceable. — IvoShandor 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, I tried, you find it if you think it's so easily replaceable.Rlevse 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you go there and take a picture. If not it would seem you didn't really try. Don't bite btw. IvoShandor 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- In other words, as long as this structure stands it is easy to create a replacement. IvoShandor 10:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - replaceable unfree image of building. --Abu badali (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TheSwitchKappaMikey 6.JPG
- Questionable copyright status (derivative work), possibly image vandalism, fan-made "comic" - kelvSYC 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:800px-CSCHLmap-USA-states.png
- Orphaned, Duplicate of Image:800px-CSCHLMap-USA-states.png -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:933758667107_0_ALB.jpg
- Orphaned Duplicate of Image:933758667107 0 ALB.JPG -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tyravs.jpg
- - uploaded by Terrence235 (notify | contribs).
- Screnshot from a tv program used sollely to illustrate a text passage that mentioned the program. The scene captures no relevant info that couldn't be expressed with text only. Abu badali (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Timedixie.jpg
- Non-notable time magazine cover, used in an article that doesn't discuss the cover Abu badali (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it is discussed in the article.
- In the May 29 issue of Time, Maguire said, "I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do." Maines also retracted her earlier apology to Bush, stating, "I apologized for disrespecting the office of the President, but I don't feel that way anymore. I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever." --DrBat 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The magazine issue is mentioned, but the cover itself is not. This image adds no relevant information. See Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png for examples of magazine covers notable enough to deserve discussion. --Abu badali (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the May 29 issue of Time, Maguire said, "I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do." Maines also retracted her earlier apology to Bush, stating, "I apologized for disrespecting the office of the President, but I don't feel that way anymore. I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever." --DrBat 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Unattatched Bookmark.JPG
- - uploaded by Sidious1701 (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, out of focus. — Crazysuit 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Liquid Paper.JPG
- - uploaded by Sidious1701 (notify | contribs).
- Out of focus. — Crazysuit 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep While it is out of focus, it is better than nothing. When someone takes the time to replace it with a better image, it should be deleted. ~ BigrTex 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Wouldn't this qualify as a derivative work, thus it cannot be released under public domain?IvoShandor 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I replaced the out of focus image with a promo picture fom the Liquid Paper website. I agree with IvoShandor that this image is a derivative of a copyrighted work so it cannot be public domain as tagged. Since there can be no free alternative, we might as well use the promo. -Nv8200p talk 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Composition book.JPG
- - uploaded by Sidious1701 (notify | contribs).
- Out of focus. — Crazysuit 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elliotlewis.jpg
- - uploaded by Elliot Lewis (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic orphan, uploaded for previous version of Elliot Lewis which has since been turned into a redirect to a different Elliott Lewis — BigrTex 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Raphaeltuck.jpg
- - uploaded by Elliot Lewis (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic orphan, uploaded for previous version of Elliot Lewis which has since been turned into a redirect to a different Elliott Lewis — BigrTex 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Imperialhouse.jpg
- - uploaded by Elliot Lewis (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic orphan, uploaded for previous version of Elliot Lewis which has since been turned into a redirect to a different Elliott Lewis — BigrTex 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Westsidecenter.jpg
- - uploaded by Elliot Lewis (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic orphan, uploaded for previous version of Elliot Lewis which has since been turned into a redirect to a different Elliott Lewis — BigrTex 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sunnysajnani2.jpg
[edit] Image:Mark_sedona.jpg
[edit] Image:Brezno_city_centre.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete (Image:City centre brezno.jpg is brighter and used), Absent uploader BigrTex 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brezno_city2.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader BigrTex 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not needed to turn article about a town into photo gallery. Pavel Vozenilek
[edit] Image:Brezno_city_centre2.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader BigrTex 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's nothing wrong with the image, and I added it back to Brezno. grendel|khan 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps a collection on Commons would be better than large gallery on en:. Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Finarifa3.jpg
- Finarifa3.jpg - obsoleted by Finarifa.jpg — Robacols 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Sockzorz' drawings
- Used only for vandalizing Master Chief (Halo) and Sonic the Hedgehog (character) — grendel|khan 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ac6.jpg
[edit] Image:Maxim_january_2003_01.jpg
- - uploaded by Vivir_tortura (notify | contribs).
- non-notable magazine cover, probably intended to be used on the article about the artist depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tatyeurovision.jpg
- - uploaded by Vivir_tortura (notify | contribs).
- Unfree screenshot of a musical duo performing contains no noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text only Abu badali (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bonnaroo07logo.jpg
- - uploaded by Sigsherman (notify | contribs).
- orphan, bad rendering currently, and original image not covered under fair use. Replaced by Image:Bonnaroo 2007 logo.png.- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Glowafterdarkbyjlo.jpg
- Unecessaryunfree image. it's a (non-notable) advertisement for a fragance, and is used in an article's section that mentions this fragance (but not the ad itself) Abu badali (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pamela_Anderson_Baywatch.jpg
- No evidence this image was released by the stated copyright holder as promotional materia. Using a screenshot to depict this fictional character would be a safer bet Abu badali (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:LT_on_SI.jpg
- - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
- Unecessary magazine cover. The only mention to the magazine in the article is a (IMHO, original research) sentence saying "Taylor's prominence on the team that year is witnessed by the fact that he appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated alone the week leading up to Super Bowl XX". The cover doesn't seem to contain ant relevant information that can't be conveyed with text only. Abu badali (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- While this is definitely a bad faith nom and the OR claim is laughable, I re-worded the text in the article. The user should be aware that the text next to a magazine cover (which was fine) is not reason to nominate an image for deletion. The SI cover leading up to the Super Bowl is notable, especially when it features only one individual so prominently. It goes to show Taylor's prominence that year. I re-worded it however and just used the quote from the cover. Quadzilla99 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has and always has had a fair use rational by the way. Quadzilla99 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate the application of WP:AGF in this discussion (as in any other). Thanks for addressing the my Original Research concerns. But I still think the image is unnecessary, as it contains no relevant information that can't be conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please you only nommed this because you commented on it before (see the page's history), I told that you should comment on the talk page (which you didn't), and so you nommed all the page's images. Incidentally there's almost nothing in the world that can't be described in words, so that blanket explanation is very near useless. Quadzilla99 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not only about what "can" be described but more about what "needs" to be described in an encyclopedic article. As in the example I mentioned elsewhere, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png is a cover that contains information that deserve discussion. But Image:LT_on_SI.jpg, as far as I can see, is not. --Abu badali (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear you don't follow sports at all and don't understand how prominent SI is in sports circles in America. Quadzilla99 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's clearly one of the best examples of the media publicity that surrounded him during his career; it literally summarizes the coming Super Bowl (between two teams with 53 man rosters) by saying, "Broncos beware of Lawrence Taylor" what could be a better more informative, illustrative example of his career and the heights it excelled to? It's also the pinnacle of his career and a very important moment in his career. Quadzilla99 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the above is not original research, it would still be the "magazine issue" and not the "magazine cover image" that was notable. We don't need to show a magazine cover every time a magazine issue is mentioned. --Abu badali (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ther magazine is a very important issue as I have said. I'm sorry you don't follow American football or you'd understand. Quadzilla99 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the above is not original research, it would still be the "magazine issue" and not the "magazine cover image" that was notable. We don't need to show a magazine cover every time a magazine issue is mentioned. --Abu badali (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's clearly one of the best examples of the media publicity that surrounded him during his career; it literally summarizes the coming Super Bowl (between two teams with 53 man rosters) by saying, "Broncos beware of Lawrence Taylor" what could be a better more informative, illustrative example of his career and the heights it excelled to? It's also the pinnacle of his career and a very important moment in his career. Quadzilla99 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear you don't follow sports at all and don't understand how prominent SI is in sports circles in America. Quadzilla99 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not only about what "can" be described but more about what "needs" to be described in an encyclopedic article. As in the example I mentioned elsewhere, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png is a cover that contains information that deserve discussion. But Image:LT_on_SI.jpg, as far as I can see, is not. --Abu badali (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please you only nommed this because you commented on it before (see the page's history), I told that you should comment on the talk page (which you didn't), and so you nommed all the page's images. Incidentally there's almost nothing in the world that can't be described in words, so that blanket explanation is very near useless. Quadzilla99 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- While this is definitely a bad faith nom and the OR claim is laughable, I re-worded the text in the article. The user should be aware that the text next to a magazine cover (which was fine) is not reason to nominate an image for deletion. The SI cover leading up to the Super Bowl is notable, especially when it features only one individual so prominently. It goes to show Taylor's prominence that year. I re-worded it however and just used the quote from the cover. Quadzilla99 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep obviously. Quadzilla99 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Taylor-60_Minutes.jpg
- - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
- Unecessary unfree screenshot, showing an athlete's face during an interview. Used only to illustrate the an article's section about this interview. The image doesn't seem to add any relevant information that can't be conveyed with text only Abu badali (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The show is discussed in the article. The image accompanies the text describing the show in the article. Quadzilla99 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has and always has had a fair use rational by the way, and the image is extremely unlikely to be used for commercial purposes by the copyright holder. Quadzilla99 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify the program aired in 2003 and will not be aired again in the foreseeable future (60 Minutes does not air re-runs that old). In addition it's ridiculous to assume Taylor or CBS will sell the the pic in any form. Also like I said above Abu's claim that you could describe it in words is particularly misguided, as there is almost no information that can't be conveyed in just words. Also the photo shows the emotion in his face, being that the interview is described as a soul-wrenching admission later in the article, this is particularly informative. Quadzilla99 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has and always has had a fair use rational by the way, and the image is extremely unlikely to be used for commercial purposes by the copyright holder. Quadzilla99 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The show is discussed in the article. The image accompanies the text describing the show in the article. Quadzilla99 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep obviously. Quadzilla99 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lawrence_Taylor_on_SI.jpg
- - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree magazine cover. It's used in an article that mentions the magazine issue publication, but the cover has nothing notable. Abu badali (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Important cover Taylor's appearance is discussed in the article and the issue's importance becomes clear—illustarate his rebirth from drug addiction in a visually distinctive way that words could hardly express. Bad faith nom. Quadzilla99 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- "the issue's importance becomes clear" but is the cover image important? "Bad faith nom" - Stop! --Abu badali (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I could explain it again, or you could just read what I typed above. Quadzilla99 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I re-read your comment, and the article. Everything in the article about this magazine issue is:
- "In July 2006 Taylor again re-emerged into the public eye, appearing on the cover of a Sports Illustrated issue dedicated to former athletes and sport figures. In the magazine Taylor credited his hobby of golf with helping him get over his previous hard-partying ways and drug filled lifestyle."
- And the image's caption: "Taylor on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 2006 promoting his new drug free lifestyle.".
- I see a weak notability claim to the magazine issue, and no notability claim to the magazine cover image. --Abu badali (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's good that you see that, you're wrong by the way, as I've stated repeatedly. Quadzilla99 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I re-read your comment, and the article. Everything in the article about this magazine issue is:
- I could explain it again, or you could just read what I typed above. Quadzilla99 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has always had a fair use rational by the way. Quadzilla99 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- "the issue's importance becomes clear" but is the cover image important? "Bad faith nom" - Stop! --Abu badali (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Important cover Taylor's appearance is discussed in the article and the issue's importance becomes clear—illustarate his rebirth from drug addiction in a visually distinctive way that words could hardly express. Bad faith nom. Quadzilla99 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep obviously. Quadzilla99 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Andrewvandecamp.jpg
- - uploaded by Yoursvivek (notify | contribs).
- Image showing a fictional character from a TV series comes from the copyright holder's entretainment website abc.go.com. Our use of the image replace the original marke role for the image. (i.e.: If I can see a good picture of this character on wikipedia.org, why do I need to go to abc.go.com?) Abu badali (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment' One would imagine that someone would go to the website for information on andrew, for wallpapers on him, and for general stuff on DH. As I understand it, this image is either a screenshot or a publicity photo and therefore different rules apply than to an image that was simply pilfered for our own ends. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's surely not a publicity photo, just read abc.go.com's terms of use and you'll see we're far from welcome to redistribute their images. A user made screenshot would be a better choice for illustrating this fictional character. --Abu badali (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI1.JPG
- - uploaded by Tonyfuchs1019 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree magazine cover. Used in an article about an athelete to illustrate the passage that mentions that the attlete was on the cover, but the unfree image itself doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI2.JPG
- - uploaded by Tonyfuchs1019 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree magazine cover. Used in an article about an athelete to illustrate the passage that mentions that the attlete was on the cover, but the unfree image itself doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brady_Quinn_SI.jpg
- - uploaded by Lmcelhiney (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree magazine cover. Used in an article about an athelete to illustrate the passage that mentions that the attlete was on the cover, but the unfree image itself doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, the magazine cover is unfree, as are most, if not all magazine covers. Neither unnecessary nor non-notable are correct. It is notable because it illustrates a preview of the expectation of the entire NCAA College Football expertise of Sports Illustrated staff and management before the beginning of the 2006 season. For a similar reason it is necessary as a worthwhile adjunct to the article. It illustrates the power of one man's team to draw the entire focus of the college football community toward those three men as a potential to become Number 1. The article describes, in words a view of this magnetic nature of Notre Dame's top three, but the image from the cover captures the essence of their attraction as no amount of words could.--Lmcelhiney 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this analysis original research or it was drawn from reliable sources? And If I read you correctly, it seems that we're using this magazine cover just because its beautiful elaborated photograph conveniently illustrates our article about the subject. Sports Illustrated spent some money producing this image. We shouldn't be using it unless we're doing critical commentary on the image itself. --Abu badali (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons articulated above.-PassionoftheDamon 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI-TragedyInTheRing.jpg
- Unecessary unfree magazine cover. The article mentions the magazine issue and describes the cover, but doesn't explain why the cover itself is notable or worth discussing. Abu badali (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brandi_Carlile.jpg
- - uploaded by Spence2383 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation (http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/graphics/042805music5.jpg) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I got this photo off of my desktop and apparently didn't input it into wikipedia correctly. What do I need to have filled out that I haven't already so that I can use this photo to replace the old one??
[edit] Image:PSTN.gif
- - uploaded by Luis F. Gonzalez (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned because Image:PSTN office classification hierarchy.png made this image obsolete. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anna12.jpg
- - uploaded by Jayanthv86 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree non-notable magazine cover. It's used in an article about an athlete to illustrate the text that mentions the athelte was on the cover. But the cover image itself doesn't seem to add any noteworth information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Maranunknown.jpg
- Wrong licensing. Uploader seems to claim copyright because he/she "legally purchased" and then "scanned" the image. Abu badali (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:URI URL URN.png
- OR, UE, OB by Image:URI_Venn_Diagram.png — Rjgodoy 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Low_Tatras_12km_from_town_brezno.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader BigrTex 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Low Tatras have better photos now. Pavel Vozenilek 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leto_125.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned without description, Absent uploader BigrTex 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Photo from a Slovakian city (most likely Bratislava). "Leto" means "the summer". Ehh, delete, not needed. Pavel Vozenilek 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ext_panorama_noc_01.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Polus_City_Center_5.jpg
- - uploaded by Marek.Kvackaj (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader BigrTex 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- A similar picture is on Commons: [2]. Polus is a large shopping center in Bratislava (Slovakian Wiki). I'll create a stub around this photo, it feels more dynamic than the one on Commons. Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Polus.jpg){kind=link}