Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 19

< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

File:SamClark.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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SamClark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kogsquinge ( | contribs | uploads).
  • This is a replaceable image as a free photograph of Ringo Brown (Sam Clark's character) can be taken at Oaks Court (Ramsay St is the fictional name) while filming or rehearsing and per the policy at WP:NFC
  1. 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. therefore this image fails the WP:NFC. Bidgee (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (anon no !vote) See Category:Neighbours images for the other 33 images that would need to be deleted under this justification. Any usable image of the actor Sam Clark should and would be on commons as a free-use image. This image is not correctly named and should be deleted and re-uploaded with the proper character name as has been done for the other 33 images for the character articles of the series. 71.221.102.220 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's own information states that "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" screenshots can be used and qualify under the fair use. If we don't use a screenshot then how are we supposed to identify the character? Also "This is a replaceable image as a free photograph of Ringo Brown (Sam Clark's character) can be taken at Oaks Court (Ramsay St is the fictional name) while filming or rehearsing" well no you can't because you can't get on set whilst that's taking place. I would suggest renaming the file to "Ringobrown.jpg" and keeping it. There is also no other free images available in the public domain. Also, as a side note, I've noticed that the person uploading the image to Wikipedia is still quite new and still learning, therefore made some errors whilst uploading. I noticed the errors as soon as I saw the picture, I tried to correct them but unfortunately before I got the chance to do so someone nominated it for deletion. That to me came across as very bitey --5 albert square (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but per WP:NFC if it fails one of the listed policies it should not be uploaded. This is your assumption that photos can't be taken on set in Oaks Court. Also re-read the policy I have quoted. This editor is no longer a new editor and in fact had been warned by a number of contributors on their uploads and a under of people has uploaded files under this file name, so not bitey at all. Bidgee (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also User:5 albert square is canvassing on user talk pages[1][2]. Bidgee (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been told that's ok as I'm simply letting people know that the image is up for deletion and not telling them which way to vote? --5 albert square (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying two individuals, without telling them which way to vote, really isn't the thing that we prohibit with the canvassing policy. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly canvassing, besides, I was just being notified of this, Besides I'm the uploader of this image, me. The last listed user, uploaded an image with station ID, then replaced it with the file I added two days before this, the exact same file. All other versions were deleted. So with 5albertsquare knowing I upload many Neighbours images, she was bound to let me know. Anyway, I vote my own way, I'd of approved a delete if the points made were valid. So far we've conversed about the contents of DC Comics.. Yet still no answer, will Bidgee Aussielegend be trying out the theory that we can access the set?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A free image could be created for any image if the copyright holder releases it for free use and that includes character images if the owner of the show so desires. The phrase in WP:NFC has to be balanced on the extreme unlikelyhood of this happening for copyrighted character images. Also extremely unlikely would be for some random photographer to capture on an open set the exact image that appears on the filmed final product. Any other photo taken on set would just be a photograph of the actor in costume and makeup - a photo of the actor, not the character. It would be usable as an actor image in the actor article but not in the character article. 71.221.102.220 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then aren't all screenshots of characters like that? They're simply headshots with the character in a non-notable costume? So if that's the case then you will need to delete every soap character image on Wikipedia because they will all fail WP:NFCC for this reason? --5 albert square (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not all like that. File:NCIS - Leroy Jethro Gibbs.jpg, for example, shows the actor wearing an NCIS jacket and hat. Even though the face is the same, the image shows the actor in character, as does "POLICE" on the jacket in File:NCIS-TonyDiNozzo.jpg. These are quite clearly images of the actors in character. File:SamClark.jpg could have been taken anywhere. There's no costume. Despite assertions above, it is possible get free photos of TV characters. For example File:Hannahperforms.JPG is clearly Hannnah Montana, not Miley Cyrus. When I took the images in Tomorrow, When the War Began (film), I had no trouble getting on set to take photos. Unfortunately, on the day I spied all of the actors in costume on the same set, I didn't have my camera. That was all that stopped me. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to a character than costume. Hairstyle, makeup, facial expressions as reacting to other characters and as directed are likely unique to the character. A character image, even a head shot, is not representative of the normal appearance of the actor and and actor image can't represent an actor's specific portrayal of a character. See for example Buffy Summers and Sarah Michelle Gellar or File:AbbySciuto.png vs File:Pauley Perrette (18 October 2009).jpg. Saying actor/character images are interchangeable breaks a lot of current articles. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to use images of females to demonstrate your point, even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid point, because their entire appearance can vary within hours depending just on how they do their hair. (Compare Miley Crus to Miley Stewart to Hannah Montana) Males are a little different. Compare File:NCIS - Leroy Jethro Gibbs.jpg to File:Mark Harmon 1 edit1.jpg and File:NCIS-TonyDiNozzo.jpg to File:Michael Weatherly (19 September 2008) 7.jpg and the only difference is the clothes. In this image the clothes are a non-issue because there's very little to see of them and this image could easily be replaced by a free image, even if it has to be cropped. As for "facial expressions as reacting to other characters", the image we're talking about has a very bland facial expression that can easily be captured in a free image. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a bland facial expression but it is unknown whether or not this expression is unique to the character and created by the actor as directed by the director or something natural to the actor. The actor may or may not ever look that way in real life. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a great rebuttal against someone trying to justify something with some rare exceptions being overlooked being used as a precedent. In this case you have a precedent massive enough to be backed up with a license tag {{Non-free television screenshot}} that reflects this common usage. I know there would be massive opposition if someone went through all the character articles and proposing deletion of screen capture images based on availability of free-use actor images. There are 34 images for this particular series alone - see Category:Neighbours images. I for one can't see any reason based on your arguments why a case wouldn't be made for example, for File:AbbySciuto.png to be replaced by File:Pauley Perrette (18 October 2009).jpg - it is just a headshot and is actually pretty close to the same appearance. Yeah the screenshot is a better representation of the character, but that is never a justification for using a copyrighted image over a free use one in other cases where free-use is required. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The actor may or may not ever look that way in real life" is really clutching at straws. Acting in a TV program is real-life, even if the end product isn't. If the actor can pull off the expression on TV then he can pull it off in real life. There may be massive opposition to proposing deletion but if the images could be replaced by free images then that's what should be done. Having had a look through some of the images I can't see why they couldn't be replaced. But that's them and not this. The headshot is nothing special. It's just the actor in an indeterminate setting in street clothes with a bland expresssion. On the other hand, File:AbbySciuto.png shows Perrette as Scuito, wearing a lab coat on set. She's not in street clothes and she is clearly dressed as Abby Scuito. That's the big difference here. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The actor may or may not ever look that way in real life" is a key point and making the determination of whether or not this is true enough for an actor image to be a replacement for a character image is an editor judgment which we should not be doing (see original research). You are making that judgment with both the Ringo Brown and Abby Scuito images saying one is replaceable and the other not. I agree it is best for a character image to be shown with show context and in this case a better screencap of Ringo Brown could, and maybe should, be chosen, but that is not necessary per common accepted usage. This whole image deletion request came about because originally this image WAS, but is no longer, used to illustrate the actor which is invalid usage of this image. Usage to illustrate the character is still valid. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR to follow the policy, which states quite clearly that "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." To serve the same encyclopaedic purpose as this image, which is to "identify and illustrate the subject", all you need is a free head-shot of the actor since there are no character specific traits or clothing illustrated in the current image. It's just a head-shot, nothing more. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the judgment call/evaluation you are making - "no character specific traits or clothing illustrated". You may think that but can't know that. A screencap of the character is the only way to guarantee that this is an actual image of the character as uniquely portrayed on screen and not some editor believed facsimile of the actor being close enough to replace it. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no judgement call here at all. It's pretty damn clear when you look at the image that he's not wearing anything special. He has a bland, featureless expression and the only thing you can see is a collar. What do you see? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That bland featureless expression may be an expression that the actor would normally naturally make or might solely be part of his characterization as directed - we can't know. Likewise with the clothing we do see might also be a wardrobe choice unique to the character - again we can't know this. Even on male characters there is performance makeup applied that will change the facial appearance as viewed on screen. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said is pure speculation and has no place here. The fact is, it's an expression that the actor can make. There is no evidence that it's a trademark expression of the character. The makeup used by the character in this scene is used to reduce shine etc. It's not to alter appearance. The clothing is noting more than a collar. It does not change the apparance of the character either. His head still looks like his head. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made no conclusions. I just gave examples of stuff we don't and can't know. Conclusions about why the makeup was used, for example, IS speculation. We can't know whether or not the screenshot appearance is unique to the character or a common appearance of the actor. We can't know this for sure. Making that judgment, as you are doing, that makeup, wardrobe and facial expression used during a performance that creates the character is replaceable by any common image of the actor in this instant case is the pure speculation. You have already concluded that File:AbbySciuto.png cannot be replaced by File:Pauley Perrette (18 October 2009).jpg. You are making content judgments of what is replaceable and what is not based solely on your subjective evaluations. This is not useful guidance for future editors. The hard and fast rule that characters and actors are separate and distinct and not replaceable for each other is fairly simple, easy to understand, and non-subjective. 174.22.132.57 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A photograph of the actor, even on set, is not a photograph of the character. The Hannah Montana example is a bad one because Miley Cyrus plays Hannah Montana on stage, in person, in front of her audience, whereas Sam Clark plays Ringo Brown on television. The character only truly exists on television during episodes of Neighbours. AnemoneProjectors 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good god, a free photo of an actor acting the roll (character) in which they known for isn't if taken with a still camera but it is if taken with a video camera? Right.... So a photo of a news reader (presenting the news) or a reporter reporting would be the same as some one acting a TV roll? Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? A newsreader isn't a character. AnemoneProjectors 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No but it is a roll which is carried out on television but I have clearly gotten free use images of them doing their roll. Same goes for a soapy actor/actress. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of an actor on set, where he would be dressed as the character is not a photo of the character? That means that this image, which is a photo of the actor on set, is not an image of the character? And for Hannah Montana, are you saying that File:Hannahperforms.JPG isn't a photo of Hannah Montana because she's not on TV during an episode of Hannah Montana? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What image? This image (of Ringo Brown) isn't a photo of the actor on set, it's a screenshot from television. I didn't say the Hannah Montana photo wasn't a photo of Hannah Montana, I said it's a bad example to use in this discussion because Miley Cyrus plays the character on stage as well. AnemoneProjectors 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference. The image is of an actor on set. It's just a second-hand image, having been taken from the screen, rather than directly. Are you arguing that a photo of an actor on set in a Batman costume isn't a photo of a Batman character? File:SamClark.jpg doesn't represent Ringo Brown any better than a free image of Sam Clark on set would. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of someone dressed as Batman isn't to be compared with this, as Batman appears in multiple media sources, costumes widely available for batman, the same applies to Hannah Montana. This is a fictional character from a serial drama, that only airs on Television. There seems a little confusion about what kind of media Ringo Brown exists in.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. If the image showed the actor in some sort of distinctive costume, or in a set that was obviously program specific, then it might not be replaceable, but since it's just a head-shot in street clothes in an indeterminate setting, it is replaceable. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So wouldn't that be a little deceiving to readers, "well Clark looks like Ringo in this picture, let's pass it off as him..." You have not answered my ongoing question, who is going to sneak onto set and take the photo? There might be freedom of photography in Australia, but I doubt they allow trespassers to get away freely. The falicy is that you said we can aqquire an image of Ringo, from the set, it would be replaceable, but you just said the ACTOR, needs an attire resembling the character is a destictive outfit. It would be the actor still anyway. Ringo where's different clothes per episode and is in multiple sets anyway... as are all fictional characters in the field of serial drama. To reiterate.. Ringo is no more Batman than he is Billy Batson, these examples do have destictive outfits, I don't see how you can draw a comparison other than they are all works of fiction.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image is just a head-shot with no distinctive attire or recognisable sets so yes, nearly any photo of the actor could be used to identify and illustrate the character. There's no fallacy, because there's no need to get a photo of him in costume wearing his horns and trademark tutu, carrying his sword and shield on the back of his trusty stead. Oh hang on, he doesn't do any of that does he. He just wears street clothes. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, then why do we need him in street clothes, why? What's wrong with his head shot? It's the only free image on-screen of Ringo. Ringo doesn't exist off the screen.
Nobody said we needed him in street clothes. As has been explained umpteen times, the head-shot is just that. A free image could replace the image, which is not "the only free image on-screen of Ringo". It's not free at all and that's the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no other free equivalent that could be created, this character only appears in episodes of there named show in the article. Images of Sam Clark on set would be the actor, plus you cannot just walk onto the set. In my opinion the fair use for this image is perfectly acceptable, no need to do this, thats because adhering to the policies this image is well within in it's right of inclusion on WP.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A image of an actor on set dressed in a costume of the character they portray, is still the actor. When he's seen on screen, that's when he becomes the character. If we managed to get a free image of Sam Clark while he was on set, we would then have to establish whether Clark was in character at the time. Whoever took the photo would need to provide strong evidence that Clark was definitely in character at the time and acting as the character he portrays. Bidgee, you say that anyone can go to Pin Oak Court and take photos of the cast filming or rehearsing, well that's not true. Pin Oak is a real street and visitors are told not to go beyond the beginning of the driveways. I quote from the official Ramsay Street tour website, "When filming takes place Ramsay Street is closed and no public access is permitted". That doesn't say anyone can just go on to the street and take a photo of a cast member while filming. It also doesn't say that Sam Clark (or anyone else) is guaranteed to be there. So, if we want a free image of a certain character/cast member we'll have to go back there day after day and wait to see if the anyone turns up for filming. Also, the Global Television studios where they film inside the sets are also not open to the public. Btw, I don't feel that 5asq's message on my talk page was canvassing. She informed me that the image was up for deletion and comments would be welcome. I was in no way swayed to !vote a certain way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneGloom07 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (Sorry about that!)[reply]
I hope you realise that what you're saying here is that this is not batman. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 5 albert square (talk · contribs) and June Gloom. I agree. Outback the koala (talk) 02:59, 20 May 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.

File:BCR-soundtrack-cover.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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BCR-soundtrack-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by SeanMooney ( | contribs | uploads).
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.

María Teresa Constantini

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 process; please use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (non-admin closure). --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC) double content: María Teresa Costantini --Artep66 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 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.

File:JoeandMacNATitleScreen.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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoeandMacNATitleScreen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by GVnayR ( | contribs | uploads).
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:British Empire Anachronous 2.PNG

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⚡ 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Empire Anachronous 2.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sean II ( | contribs | uploads).

And ten additional files:

File:British Empire Anachronous 6.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Doctor Boogaloo ( | contribs | uploads)
File:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Empire .PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Empire 1402.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Empire 1492.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Empire total.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Overseas Empire And European Realms Anachronous.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Overseas Empire And European Realms Anachronous 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms Castille.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
  • Keep [File:British Empire Anachronous 6.png] and [File:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG] should be kept for project use. The first shows the expansion of the Empire over time at different periods, the second shows the greatest extent of the British Empire at no particular time, but I still feel that it can be used by the project. Delete [File:British Empire Anachronous 2.PNG] as it is a double and we have better elsewhere. No opinion on rest. Outback the koala (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [File:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG] is an exadurated version of [File:Anachronous map of the British Empire.png] as Afganastan, Tibet, Nepal and Buhtan were never under British colonial power; Tibet & Afganastan were invaded by British Raj once but they were unsuccessful in colonising those territories and the other two countries were just too hard to get into due to their mountainous shields againest invasion. Furthermore [File:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG] labels part of the Dutch East Indies as part of the empire which is incorrect and the uploader must have made a mistake in western Africa by labeling Senegal instead of Gambia as an oversight. That is why this one is being nominated for deletion over [File:Anachronous map of the British Empire.png]. Vadac (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People have been working on the Commons in this area and beyond in recent months by geting rid of lots of nonsense colonial empire maps and the last thing they or I want are for these maps to be transfered to the Commons as that would just cause more work for them. Each colonial empire should have one or two accurately depicted maps and no more, posted on the Commons for all to use, and all the rest of the duplicates should just be eradicated! That way when people are looking for a map of such an empire they are not confused over a large gallery of simular, or in some cases, very different maps making them unsure which is the 'real' one. I hope I have made my point clear. Vadac (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an admin at Commons this is not my understanding of the position at all. There cannot be one or two accurate maps for each Empire without an endless wheel war as to which map most accurately represents history, as everyone believes that their understanding of history is the 'real' one. Rather the position on Commons is that minority and even contrary interpertations of historical borders should be catered for, not just for content users pan wiki, but also for the wider community outside of the wikimedia projects. Once properly categorised it is for end users to argue as to what they mean.KTo288 (talk) 04:50, 24 May 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_19