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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan os x logo trans black.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Speedleader (notify | contribs | uploads).

• No longer used. T3h 1337 b0y 00:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan OS X Desktop.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Speedleader (notify | contribs | uploads).

• No longer used. T3h 1337 b0y 00:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Optimizednate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Nateland (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphan Nateland (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eknodine.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs | uploads).

• This is a very, very minor plot-point, and having an image of it fails both NFCC 8 and WP:WHO/MOS#Images (the FUR addresses neither of these points, as it should, and adds insult to injury by providing an arguably misleading source). It is also relatively easy to describe with text should that be judged necessary ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sheesh...I've added a commentary to the source entry on the FUR to make it clear that the original source was the BBC broadcast of the episode. Images of this type cannot be adequately replaced with text. If, for instance, I was to take the current textual description from the Dalek article and give it to a group of people who had never seen one on screen and ask them to draw it, I'd get a wide variety of results, some might even be close but would still be inaccurate compared to an actual picture/screenshot. Exxolon (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And as for NFCC 8? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how to rephrase this again. The image aids the readers understanding of the article by giving them an accurate depiction of the alien in a way that text cannot. A textual description, no matter how detailed, will never be as accurate simply because of the subjective nature of the human mind - to give an analogy, before the film adaptations, anyone who read the description of Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings would have formed a different mental image of the character. Exxolon (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how to make this any clearer. While it may aid readers' understanding, it is only permitted on Wikipedia if it is absolutely 100% essential to readers' understanding, and if the article would be significantly less useful were the image omitted. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that anything that aids understanding is 100% essential by default since we're trying to create the most comprehensive, cohesive and understandable article on any encyclopedic topic. Exxolon (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy states - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - I firmly believe that the images under debate do significantly increase readers understanding and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding - We're not in the business of making it harder to understand articles. Nowhere in that policy does it require "100% essential", only "significantly increase" - your argument is from a non-existent position and had I been more alert I would have noticed that on the initial occasion. However we are largely going in circles here - each of us believes we are right which is a poor starting point to achieve agreement. I've commented on your objection to my initial suggestion on your talk, I would think that if you are willing to agree that would be a much more productive way to address this issue than the endless back and forth here. Exxolon (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you answer a direct question with either "yes" or "no" and then a short explanation: Do you think it is impossible for anybody to understand the concept of the episode without seeing this image? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not answering this question because it's not relevant - you seem to be under the mistaken impression that WP:NFCC#8 only permits the use of a fair use image if it's "100% essential" or "impossible" for someone to understand the article subject without it. WP:NFCC#8 does not say that - it only requires the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - the image in question satisfies that criteria - I don't need to prove it's 100% essential or that the article is impossible to understand without it. Exxolon (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're refusing the question: thank you for being so candid. However, you do have to prove that the image's "omission would be detrimental to [readers'] understanding" of the topic (not merely of what the aliens look like, but you need to consider whether a perfect grasp of the alien is entirely necessary for the reader to understand the article, which is about the episode as a whole). You also need to check out the passage of WP:WHO/MOS#Images which states, Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use, e.g. "This image portrays an important plot point." While the image may rely on the plot to justify its use, it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 09:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That red section is from the Dr Who Wikiproject manual of style which has no policy weight in of itself - is it copied from an actual policy page? If so can you give me the link to that? Exxolon (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is the consensus position on style from the Doctor Who WikiProject, a consensus which you apparently set much store by – you also appear to have (presumably deliberately) failed to reply to the first part of my comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 11:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankyou for the clarification - I can now address it in that context. I hadn't "deliberately" not answered the first section as you've insinuated, I wanted to clarify that section before composing my response. I am considering this and will post it in due course. Exxolon (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the delayed response, as you may have noted from my talkpage my internet access is sporadic at this time. I think we've come to the crux of the issue. There's no real way for either of us to "prove" empirically our respective positions here. As it's a completely subjective judgement I cannot "prove" that the image's inclusion benefits the article (though I obviously believe this) any more that you can "prove" that removing it does not harm a readers understanding of the topic. Given this, I have a proposal to stop this endless debate which is growing to resemble the Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. I will voluntarily remove the image from the article for the time being if you withdraw this FFD nomination. We then follow the suggestion previously made on your talk and take the image to the Doctor Who Wikiproject for evaluation (with perhaps invitations to other relevant groups to chip in) and discussion in which we both agree to abide by the consensus reached as to whether it's to be included in the article - if consensus is the image is appropiate, it goes in. If it's not, it stays out. Same for the other image under discussion and to be applied to any future image that may be suggested for inclusion on a Dr Who related article. What do you say? Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice idea, but if you remove the image from the article, then it will be automatically deleted, as it should be, so I fail to see what benefit the withdrawal of the FfD could do? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 18:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unindent. Options -

1. Leave the image in the article while debate runs and consensus forms to avoid it's deletion and to facilitate ease of seeing the picture for everyone - this would be my preferred option as access to Wikipedia does not imply access to other sites.
2. Remove image from article but invoke WP:IAR to keep image on wikipedia during discussion/consensus forming even though it would be a technical violation of fair use.
3. Remove image from article (image would then be deleted) and link to offsite copies/originals (Less good from my point of view as they may not be accessible to everyone). If this option is used we would need editors willing to temporarily upload a copy to here so other editors who wished to evaluate the image but could not access the offsite copy could see it - such images would obviously be deleted immediately once seen.

• Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  One—I'm fine with this, and confident that consensus will not form to avoid its deletion. Two—won't work; WP:IAR cannot be applied to important legal-based policies, as established in the ANI thread that you started a while ago. Three—I'm fine with this in general, but the "temporary" uploading of the image is not only completely disallowed but also un-necessary: there is no reason for anybody to be unable to access an image hosted on, say, ImageShack – ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We can apply One to both images under dispute at this time then. What do we do about future images? The whole point is to avoid drama by getting consensus to include an image before it's put in the article and there are reasons why editors can access wikipedia but not other sites - Parental Control software only allowing certain sites to be accessed, school/college access blocks to image hosting sites etc Exxolon (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  With reference to future images, I genuinely don't give a damn, to be honest. You are welcome to pre-emptively seek consensus before uploading; you are welcome not to: in fact, just as I am welcome to let sleeping dogs lie on occasion and am welcome to nominate any image for deletion at any time. (For what it's worth, while it is possible that people may have web access only to Wikipedia, there is no need for us to go out of our way to accommodate them, and in particular, we will not ever bend copyright requirements for such a tiny group of people.) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion begun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Images_for_discussion. Can we consider the FFD defunct at this point? Exxolon (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with TreasuryTag. A brief description of the alien would more than suffice. Ωphois 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion on this FFD, but in general you should find a reliable source that is discussing a visual aspect of a TV episode to help you decide what parts might need an image. Otherwise it's all opinion, and mentioned earlier. The NFCC is kinda made so that you one justify keeping or deleting any image. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to discontinue contributing to this discussion as I have limited internet access/time and would prefer to be engaging in more productive activities here and it's not getting anywhere. I'll leave it to the rest of the community to evaluate everything and make a decision on this image, I will not be commenting further. Exxolon (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not really necessary as it played such a small part in the episode, and its role doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources. A description would be more than enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Descriptions of things like this are inevitably generic , and cannot explain or demonstrate the meaning or significance as well as the visual itself. We wabnt to do the best article possible, not deliberately limit ourself to a lower quality DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The foreign affairs debate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Seth Whales (notify | contribs | uploads).

This nomination also applies to the following files:

• File:The crime debate DP.jpg
• File:The chancellors' debate DP.jpg
• File:The environment debate.jpg
• File:The business debate DP.jpg
• File:The health debate DP.jpg
• File:The education debate.jpg
• File:Immigration debate DP.jpg
• File:The trust in politics debate.jpg

These logos, which appear in United Kingdom general election debates, 2010, are all used for identification. However, only one is needed because they're virtually all the same except for the persons appearing in them (and free images of these persons are available). See WP:NFCC#3.a, which says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This article also contains way too many non-free images currently. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep—I take the point that the individual elements of the images can be assembled in a more minimalist way, but in this case, I feel that the composition of each individual ident is of significant value to the readers of the article, in terms of identifying the programme. Specifically, Criterion 3a comes into play in those cases where "one item can convey equivalent significant information" – in this situation, though, it would not be one item, but a whole collection of items which the reader has to piece together in their head in order to identify the debate they're interested in: this is counterintuitive and pointless, and thus the images' use would appear to be essential. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DMS-59.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Big Brother 1984 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused. Small. Unclear. Doubt it will be used. Replacements at Commons. MGA73 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yanni.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DelianDiver (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Fails WP:NFC#UULP and WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licensed photograph of the person could reasonably be found or created. I'm nominating it here because the deletion was contested by the uploader. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing wrong with this file; its' usage is allowed by Yanni, please look it up at http://yanni.com/photos/detail.aspx?fid=97&phoid=105&aid=83 - In case this file gets deleted, it will mean that something is wrong here, and I will directly notify about the injustice, User:Jimbo Wales. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelianDiver (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Uploader removed the ((di-replaceable fair use)) template earlier. A speedy candidate that is clearly a replaceable copyright image, so fails the fair-use claim WP:NFCC#1. DelianDiver, there is no permission to use the image; did you not notice the text "© 2010 Yanni-Wake Entertainment" at the bottom of the page. ww2censor (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just emailed Yanni.com and ask them to respond to the copyright issue of this file. Please lets wait for few days for their response, before anything. Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelianDiver (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards of the footer copyright "© 2010 Yanni-Wake Entertainment", I find the argument not valid, because that is the default footer for all pages. I downloaded the images from the media gallery section 'http://yanni.com/photos/', it looks like a media kit section to me. It is the mistake of the Information Architect, that put the website (yanni.com) together, for the IA does not make it very clear, as to where and how the images should be used. To me is very obvious, they are to be used by the media. Wikipedia, is not a medium? Or, do we have to debate on this, as well? We are getting to be very bureaucratic. We should be using our very precious time and intellect, more constructively. Lets wait for their response. Shall we? Cheers! DelianDiver (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the file at any time, if you may. The folks at Yanni.com, have not made any afford to contact me, two working days now. This issue, is over for me. I regret the trouble for anyone participated. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Οι αγαθοί ευαπάτητοι - Βίας ο Πριηνεὺς ~ The naïve men are easily fooled - Bias of Priene DelianDiver (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• YanniWakePR <YanniWakePR@yanniwake.com>

Wednesday, 30 June 2010 - 8:09 pm - wrote to me

Hello Delian, Thank you for brining this to our attention. We wish to update much of what you see on the Wiki site so we will work on it from here.

Many thanks, YanniWakePR DelianDiver (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yanni-smiling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DelianDiver (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Fails WP:NFC#UULP and WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licensed photograph of the person could reasonably be found or created. I'm nominating it here because the deletion was contested by the uploader. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing wrong with this file; its' usage is allowed by Yanni, please look it up at http://yanni.com/photos/detail.aspx?fid=97&phoid=106&aid=83 - In case this file gets deleted, it will mean that something is wrong here, and I will directly notify about the injustice, User:Jimbo Wales. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelianDiver (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Uploader removed the ((di-replaceable fair use)) template earlier. A speedy candidate that is clearly a replaceable copyright image, so fails the fair-use claim WP:NFCC#1. DelianDiver, there is no permission to use the image; did you not notice the text "© 2010 Yanni-Wake Entertainment" at the bottom of the page. ww2censor (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just emailed Yanni.com and ask them to respond to the copyright issue of this file. Please lets wait for few days for their response, before anything. Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelianDiver (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards of the footer copyright "© 2010 Yanni-Wake Entertainment", I find the argument not valid, because that is the default footer for all pages. I downloaded the images from the media gallery section 'http://yanni.com/photos/', it looks like a media kit section to me. It is the mistake of the Information Architect, that put the website (yanni.com) together, for the IA does not make it very clear, as to where and how the images should be used. To me is very obvious, they are to be used by the media. Wikipedia, is not a medium? Or, do we have to debate on this, as well? We are getting to be very bureaucratic. We should be using our very precious time and intellect, more constructively. Lets wait for their response. Shall we? Cheers! DelianDiver (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the file at any time, if you may. The folks at Yanni.com, have not made any afford to contact me, two working days now. This issue, is over for me. I regret the trouble for anyone participated. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Οι αγαθοί ευαπάτητοι - Βίας ο Πριηνεὺς ~ The naïve men are easily fooled - Bias of Priene DelianDiver (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• YanniWakePR <YanniWakePR@yanniwake.com>

Wednesday, 30 June 2010 - 8:09 pm - wrote to me

Hello Delian, Thank you for brining this to our attention. We wish to update much of what you see on the Wiki site so we will  work on it from here.

Many thanks, YanniWakePR DelianDiver (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (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.