Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13

File:JX, JP & KG.jpg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

202.11.168.175 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2013 (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:Kickin Brass 2007.jpg

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic,Orphan Cbabblaba (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (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:Lugaru Screenshot.jpg

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--non-free media not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the given FUR. Including screenshots to show visual style, resolution, textures and game assets is commonly done at video game articles. The whole article is critical discussion of the game. Diego (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. How is it this cannot be adequately described with prose? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able to describe in prose the snow texture, the jagged blurriness and low polygon count of the werewolf arm, the various shapes of the trees, the algorithm for generating the clouds, and all that in a way that a reader will get the same feeling and understanding as when seeing the picture, please do so. Diego (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (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:Devon elite.JPG

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image that serves no value to the project. A user claiming to be the original person who uploaded this image added a prod tag requesting its deletion ([1]), but the usernames are different so we can't apply G7. The uploader's only contribution to Wikipedia was to add this image back in 2007 (unless s/he has deleted contributions I can't see). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 13 May 2013 (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:Welcome to Ely.JPG

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sign isn't needed for understanding the article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from every other coat-of-arms in Category:Coat of arms images for Subdivisions of England ? --217.140.96.21 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are listed as own works by the uploaders or as being in the public domain because of age. If that is indeed the case, then there is no problem. The ones listed as unfree violate WP:NFCC#1 per Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) as someone else could draw a free replacement of those based on the same blazon. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was the case, Template:non-free symbol would be meaningless. --217.140.96.22 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other kinds of symbols which need {{Non-free symbol}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (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:OpenEmuHeroScreenshot.jpg

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. Reproduction of Nintendo's intellectual property is not needed to "identify and illustrate the purpose of the OpenEmu emulator", as the FUR claims. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image displays a screenshot of an emulator that allows users to play Nintendo games on their Apple. The screenshot has a valid permission from the creator(s) of the OpenEmu software, but not from the creator(s) of Super Mario Brothers or any of the thumbnails shown. There are at least two options here that need to be considered (and I have temporarily restored in the file history a larger version so that you can see what the actual screenshot looks like). We could (1) just claim fair use (and someone would need to write a valid rationale) for the icons and screenshot of the game. We could (2) crop out the entire right half of the image (the Super Mario Brothers game) and then blank out the remaining area where the thumbnails of video games are shown. I'm leaning in the direction of option 2, but wanted to at least have an opportunity for discussion before taking unilateral action. B (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't the entire point of the screenshot is to show that the emulator can run an NES game? So add a FUR for the inclusion of Mario graphics. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a FUR to the image for the Mario graphics and visible cover art. drewmunn talk 06:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really - the point of the screenshot is to show what the product looks like. We can tell the user that it is capable of running the NES game with words - we don't have to prove it to them with a screenshot. --B (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not really showing them what it looks like, unless it runs something under emulation, as different emulators render differently. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all articles about emulators listed at List of video game emulators. Many of them have no images at all, and in the cases where they do have images, games are often not shown. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to explain that it can run NES games by simply including a textual statement about this. It may be different if you wish to show that the emulator makes the game work differently. For example, the article Bleemcast! shows that the game seems to look better when using the emulator than when using the original hardware. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2013 (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.