October 23
Image:TLC-Crazy-Sexy-Hits-407927.jpg
- orphaned, it looks non-free LegoK ontribs T alk M 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Downtown Kokomo.jpg
- orphan LegoK ontribs T alk M 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:StandardLifeHQ.JPG
- orphan LegoK ontribs T alk M 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rochard.gif
- orphan and unencyclopedic LegoK ontribs T alk M 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Marshab.jpg
- orphan and unencyclopedic LegoK ontribs T alk M 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Fakes LD.jpg
- Way too high-res. Article that it's used in won't survive afd, so why bother resizing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:CTC7 1980-882.gif
- Image is copyrighted to Southern Cross Broadcasting Bidgee (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Prime 1988.gif
- Image is copyrighted to Prime Television Bidgee (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:HSV719752.png
- Copyrighted to the Seven Network and not being used on Wikipedia Bidgee (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Companions.jpg
The result of the debate was: - Delete - As a navigational aid it is a cool way to step beyond the bounds of Wikipedia's definition of fair-use. Before participants leap into WP:DRV, WP:AN etc... I invite them to remember that Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and that the NFCC and NFC rules are deliberately designed to exclude all but a very limited range of copyright images. The long winded debate below, and elsewhere, has not shown a consensus that the image meets Wikipedia's requirements to host copyrighted images. Summaring the points that the image fails on
NFCC#1 - Unless the sole purpose of the image is as a navigation aid (which would fail NFCC#8) much of the subimages have been below noted to be replaceable by free ones. I can't see any convincing arguments that having less than the full 38 images in the collage would significantly impair reader's understanding
NFCC#3a - Ignoring it's use as a navigational aid, this is in effect 38 copyrighted images in the one article. By any standards this is a grossy excessive number. The fact that the lot have been combined into one is a technical rather than substantive change.
NFCC#8 - The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I cannot see any convincing arguments about how this (well-made) derivative work acheives this.
My final comment is that, were the rules to allow this particlar image, arguably they would also a vast range of other, similar collages which seems far beyond the intent behind the Non-free content policy. This reasoning (in the below debate) has attracted the "other stuff" response, which was not a convincing rebuttal. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)(also a reply to Hammersoft in the AN/I thread) I disagree. The images serve another purpose as a collage, rather than when they where listed side by side to the names: They allow the reader additional understanding of the way the companion role has changed over the course of more than 40 years. The number of images is never to be considered a reason for removal or inclusion, but only whether the number is needed and can be justified within the rules of WP:NFCC. If it does not fail WP:NFCC, it does not fail it, no matter if there are 1 or 100 used. Criterion 3a strictly says that less images are to be used if they "can convey equivalent significant information". If they can't, it cannot fail 3a. As Ckatz said above, I really think you should take it to WT:DW. Regards So Why 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete , clearly not minimal use, fails WP:NFCC#3a, would open the floodgates to an avalanche of copyrighted images if kept. We have NFCC for a reason, and that reason is that Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. The fact that it's not just fair use, it's a straight copyright violation because the originals aren't credited is probably a stronger reason to delete, but NFCC needs to be seen to be working as well. Black Kite 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image description clearly states the source for each image; they are gathered from screenshots or publication images. And as this is a collage depicting a cast ensamble of characters which have appeared over a span of 40+ years , there is no way this can be replaced with a free alternative. And since each individual image is cropped to show only the necessary part, there is no possibility of abuse. As to minimal use; We can't help it if there were 38 companions, so 38 is the minumim number. — E dokter • Talk • 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, the source of the original images is emphatically not "clearly stated". There is a blanket statement that they are all BBC screenshots from sometime in a 40 year period. That is not a proper citation. WP:IUP states that a minimum requirement for images is that sources must be verifiable. You need to say which episode each image is cropped from at the very least. For example, how could I check the source for the image in the third row, third column? It's not verifiable, so it must be deleted. Papa November (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Edokter: you are an admin - shouldn't you actually be upholding Wikipedia policy? Or at least explaining why you're not with relation to policy ? Black Kite 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete : 38 fair-use images on one page, as Black Kite said, fails WP:NFCC. It is there for a reason, this is that reason. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 15:12
- Keep ; there is absolutely no reasonable argument that this image is not legally fair use, and whether the image meets WP:NFCC is arguable, but my opinion is that it clearly does. It's encyclopedic, it's fair use, it's illustrative and it's a reasonable navigational aid. Given that the only other significant criterion is whether the image is replacable or not (it is not, many of those actors are dead or aged greatly, and any picture of them as their character would, at any rate, be just as covered by copyright to the same extent). I'm one of the very last person to cry "copyright paranoia", as I've deleted very many hundreds of copyvio from the encyclopedia myself, but this is definitely a case of trying to be more catholic than the pope. — Coren (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : 69.242.90.133 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Section break 1
- Keep , per supporting points above and per my comment at ANI. -- Ckatz 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep . Fair and valid non free use of copyrighted images in this article. Other stuff arguments or speculative arguments or any other end of the world arguments are irrelevant. If people realy must interpret 'minimal use' as single use, then remove all the individual images spread around multiple articles and instead use a single well crafted and annoted fair use gallery format here to give the same visual information. Heaven knows that would suit our actual primary mission of presenting information of good quality and practical benefit to readers. The list specific policy point 4 seems to exlicitly allow reuse of article images, although it needs redrafting if you want it to apply to montages and not in text images. If people in all seriousness object to this montage on the 'free encyclopoedia' mantra, then why are they not listing them all for deletion? - as far as the free mission goes, the presence of a single montage on wikipedia in addition to the presence of single character article images is nothing in the grand scheme of things, that horse has already bolted. Don't oppose the informative but compliant non free use of images on the grounds of the NFC as a poor substitute for advancing the free content mission. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- My credibility? Yes, very funny. I'm not the admin that is arguing against Wikipedia policy here, am I? What we usually do here, is raise an RfC. Hopefully, that wont' be required. Black Kite 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
How to Resize your Myspace Comment Images | PimpWebpage
Pimp your webpage with our PimpWebpage tutorials on how to add background in myspace profile, how to edit background on myspace, how to change MySpace background.
FREE Hot Layouts for YOU at Myspace Wizards - Resize Comment Images
Place this code as follows to keep the images people post in your comments section from breaking the layout of your myspace profile.
Myspace Resize Comment Images
Get your FREE Myspace Resize Comment Images ... Resize Comment Images: Place this code anywhere
MySpace Resize Comment Images Code, Resize Comment Images HTML code ...
We have hundreds of Free MySpace HTML codes. Profile codes, Image codes, HTML Code Generators, HTML Picture Code Generators, HTML Color Codes, HTML Layout Codes, HTML Background ...
Resize Your Default Myspace Image | PimpWebpage
Ever wanted to resize your Default Myspace Image? If so this tutorial is what you're looking for ... Personalized Myspace comment box codes. How to edit your comment box on Myspace.
Resizing large comments — LayoutSource.net Blog
Well this code will resize those so your comments section isn’t all messed up. ... Resize Myspace Default Image ; Myspace Resize Comments and Friends ; Myspace Resize Comment ...
Resize friend comment image - Myspace Scripts - CreateBlog
Resize friend comment image by synatribe - Myspace Scripts ... yea. :] change the XXX to the height and width you like :]
MySpace - image comment resize (is there a new code)? - Yahoo!7 ...
"MySpace - image comment resize (is there a new code)?" - Find the answer to this question and millions more on Yahoo!7 Answers.
Resize Myspace Default Image — LayoutSource.net Blog
This size will resize the default image to a size that is viewable and looks right in ... Resize Myspace Default Image ; Myspace Resize Comments and Friends ; Myspace Resize Comment Images
Helpspace - MySpace Resize Comment Images
Internet Explorer does not support max-width, so this code works a little differently in IE vs Firefox. In firefox, small images wont be made larger using this code, but in IE ...