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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal Opening.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snowman Guy (notify | contribs).

• "To serve as an illustration" seems to explicitly contradict the non-free content criteria. This image doesn't show anything unique or interesting; just that people worked at Universal Studios even in the beginning. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, decorative non-free image. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nice picture but no way that it fulfills the criteria. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (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 this discussion was: Delete; deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) However, an OTRS ticket has been found releasing it into the public domain, so this has been reversed. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:5D Rubik's Cube.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jtp184 (notify | contribs).

• An anonymous editor (apparently not the uploader) tagged this ((PD-self)), but it's sourced to a copyrighted website. I'd say it's a copyvio. If the copyright holder wishes to put it in the public domain, he'll have to change the website to say this or send in an OTRS ticket. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted as a blatant copyvio; if the IP was the website operator, it can always be reuploaded properly. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AllThingsBWCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sb26554 (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes (The original release—this one—was in black and white) can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PicturesatanExhibitionLP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sposato (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes (The original release—this one—had four pictures whited out) can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sepultura - Nation Special Edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jknobull (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes (Image scaled and an exclamation mark with symbols added) can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:23, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Relics01-b-300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edgarde (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes (The title and band name coloured in pink) can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:26, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1996RelicsLP-300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edgarde (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes (image duplicated in the circular sub-image) can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:26, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Litdvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aiman619 (notify | contribs).

• Additional non-free image in an article with a close to identical one already. The small changes can easily be described in text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative Peripitus (Talk) 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFCC 3a and 8. I do not see how it could be replaced by a free equivalent, however, since one is unlikely to exist. decltype (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the free alternative is a little bit of text describing the differences between the two images....sourced text of course - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation. I have always thought of "a free alternative" as a "free image", and considered #8 to cover what you describe. But basically, I think we are in agreement. decltype (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VictorLang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lord Opeth (notify | contribs).

• replaceable fair-use image. Given that the image is of the actor wearing a suit, either the free File:JohnSlattery08.jpg or a slightly cropped version sufficiently shows you what he looks like. Fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 04:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnSlattery08.jpg is an image about the actor. File:VictorLang.jpg is about the fictional character, and there are no free images about most fictional characters out there. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the character and the actor do not look significantly different. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason to have a non-free image, when the actor looks exactly like the character. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henrypleasecomehome.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhrmaw (notify | contribs).

• Non-free, apparently random episode screenshot, no caption, no analytical commentary, no idea what or who it shows, let alone in what way it is supposed to contribute significantly to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IHateAMystery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhrmaw (notify | contribs).

• Non-free, apparently random episode screenshot, showing a character just standing somewhere in an indescript and apparently uncharacteristic scene; no caption, no analytical commentary, no idea what or who it shows, let alone in what way it is supposed to contribute significantly to the understanding of the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A more descriptive image would've been preferable, and "This image is a screenshot of the First Season DVD release of the M*A*S*H television show, intended for wide release." doesn't say if the "wide release" applies to the DVD or the image. Either way, no proof is provided. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sans contrefaçon (video4).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europe22 (notify | contribs).

• I feel that this non-free image is a mere depiction of the artist and fails to expand readers' understanding of the article, contravening WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:She Wants You Video 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).

• This image is merely a non-free depiction of the artist. The music video is adequately described by text in the article, so this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also WP:NFCC#7, as it's currently not used in any articles. —Bkell (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ef72.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs).

File:36e5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs). (This image also listed below)

• These are non-free frames from a film, used in the article on the book from which the movie was adapted. The scenes aren't discussed in the article. I don't believe this passes our non-free content policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2593.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs).

File:90bd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs).

File:76b8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs).

File:36e5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs). (also listed above)

• The article Ice Station Zebra (film) has a non-free film poster and five non-free screenshots. I think the poster and a single screenshot are valid, but the other 4 screenshots should be deleted as violating NFCC#3. (None the scenes are discussed in the article in more than a sentence.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Also fails minimal use of non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fujikawa BabyAnimals.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Knulclunk (notify | contribs).

• This book cover is being used in Gyo Fujikawa without any critical commentry and not an article about the book itself, so it fails WP:NFC#Images #1. Besides which there is another non-free image being used, so an additional image is not minimal use per WP:NFCC#3. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Book is specifically mentioned as one of the illustrator's most published books, at several million copies. Cover shows illustrator's work as critically discussed in the accompanying text. As the only cover shown it easily passes both WP:NFC#Images #1 and WP:NFCC#3.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is true that the article mentions this book, but it is not clear that this image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic" (remember that the topic is the author, not the book), and its removal would not be "detrimental to that understanding," so the current use of this image in the article for the author fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover also show the author's signature logo, used on all her publications. As the book would not have its own article, it is appropriate to have the cover here, where her artistic style, subject matter and publications are discussed in the adjacent critical commentary.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8. If the logo is desired, crop to it. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense at all. If the logo is used on the cover of her books, why would we want to remove it from context?--Knulclunk (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#3b. —Bkell (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not JUST the signature. It's the signature as icon on the cover of the author's books, showing an example of her work, as described in the text, and on the cover of her second most popular book; still in print. --Knulclunk (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gjergj Elez Alia-Gazmend Leka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arpagjiki (notify | contribs).

• High-resolution, non-free painting that is being used to illustrate Gjergj Elez Alia, a character from Albanian folklore. Presumably this is not the only visual representation of this character ever made, and even if no free images currently exist one could be created. Also it is not clear how this image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic," and its removal would not be "detrimental to that understanding." Therefore this image fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC #1 & #8. decltype (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CampHouseFrontElevation.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Baxterguy (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned and not likely to be used. One of several PD-USGov images derived from the "7 drawings" button available at this Library of Congress website, it was used as an illustration of the Camp House. It's not that house: the Camp House is located at 1306 Broadway, while the LOC website says that this drawing is of a house at 5201 North Broadway. Find a reasonable use for the image and I'll happily withdraw the request. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atari Haunted House screenshot1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KevinOKeeffe (notify | contribs).

• Screenshot of a video game, not used in any articles, incorrectly tagged with ((PD-self)). —Bkell (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3D Tic Tac Toe screenshot1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KevinOKeeffe (notify | contribs).

• Screenshot of a video game, not used in any articles, incorrectly tagged with ((PD-self)). —Bkell (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2009 (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 - that an image may add something is insufficient to meet the NFCC requirements. It must be shown that inclusion of the image significantly increases reader's understanding in a way that free content could not - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Atarr (notify | contribs).

• Delete: The current prose in the article, "In 2006 the United States Postal Service made a stamp in commemoration of the aspen, calling it one of the forty Wonders of America" is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand the stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; 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. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first, this stamp is clearly not illustrating the subject. There are many, many shots of Aspen trees that could be used, and the stamp in question is not an illustration of any particular Aspen tree that is part of Pando. The image of the stamp, rather, exists exclusively to illustrate the existence of the stamp itself, which is the fundamental idea behind displaying a stamp for fair use. This in turn informs the reader about the broader recognition of the article's subject.

Including the actual stamp image unquestionably displays the information in a more accessible way. It's almost impossible to argue that the point is not made 'better and more effectively' by including the image. The article is improved. The reader's understanding of Pando's wider recognition is improved by seeing the image. This article is not an area of major research for most readers, and making the information accessible by a quick skimming of the article enhances the value of the article considerably. Atarr (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a compelling or significant enough usage of the image to justify a nonfree image. As a stamp collector, I can testify that there are plenty of sources (including online) testifying to the existence of this stamp. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't use a picture as proof that something exists, we quote from reliable sources. IMHO, this particular stamp is such a miserable production that it would probably reduce reader's interest in Pando. :-) (Hmmm, Pando must be about a day's drive from here, shouldn't be that hard to get an actual photo...) Stan (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sbharris (notify | contribs).

• Delete: (No rebuttal to my talk page discussion). The current prose in the article, is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand the stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; 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. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Use of the image of the man DOES indeed increase the reader's understanding of meaning of this honor. If the image of the person being honored on a stamp did NOT increase the understanding of the viewer in some way, there would be no need for even the post office to do it. They'd simply issue a stamp with block lettering: "This stamp honors John Steinbeck." Note that the stamp doesn't even mention he's an American Nobel Prize Winner. His name and face were considered enough as the honor. The "rebuttal" is that the image of the stamp is "mere decoration." The word "mere" is perjorative and inflamatory. The word "decoration" is a matter of taste, as one man's decoration is another's illustration. Interestingly, WP really HAS no good guidelines for what things "should" be illustrated. That's because it's a hard question! In any case, the one argument that fails is that the stamp is being used as an illustration of the subject. It is being used as an illustration of a stamp, and an honor. BTW, there's no real question that the U.S. Post Office itself, which owns the image, would not consider its use here, as fair use. They're happy with any non-commerical use which encourages stamp collection. SBHarris 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What exactly am I getting from the picture that I'm not getting from the text? There has to be something about the stamp image itself that is distinctive - for instance, if the original photo showed a large wart on his nose, and the stamp image omits it, that could be a valid rationale; or if the stamp design was different from other Literary Arts stamps, and the article discusses that difference. It's almost always the case that stamp designs have something interesting to be said about them, and that becomes the fair use rationale, but if all one knows is that it "honors the subject", then what is anybody getting from the image that text can't do just as well? Stan (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you're not a visual person? Perhaps not a sighted person? If not, I can't really explain the difference between a drawing and a photo to you, nor the emotional impact difference between having a photo and a postage stamp made from the photo. But there is one. If you had a postage stamp made of you (for example), and everyone you knew assured you they'd done a GREAT job from a photo of you (one that was well-known to you), you'd still want to see it. If people refused to let you see it your own stamp, and claimed it would add nothing for you to see it, and that they could just describe it over the phone, you'd think them insane.SBHarris 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you should check people's userpages before saying something about them personally - it's unlikely that a non-"visual person" would have uploaded 7,000 self-made photos to Commons! I love images, they're great, but by the rules of the game we're playing, we can't use non-free images just because we like them. If the stamp were PD, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion. Stan (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stamp is fair use. The only people arguing that it isn't, are those that say they get nothing from it. But that's their problem, not mine. The Post Office throught it added to the understanding of the subject to use his image. It is thus not only a valid point of view, but one held by the government agency which holds the copyright. SBHarris 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Great man, love the works....but all this image shows is what the text "he was honored by being placed on a U.S. postage stamp" tells us. The image of the stamp itself is not commented on in sourced text, and all this is is a nice piece of decoration that does not significantly add to reader's understanding. Fail NFCC#1 (as the text there is adequate) and NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your only problem is that there's no sourced text that discusses the stamp, that can be fixed. SBHarris 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't invent reasons to keep non-free images, we keep them if they significantly add to reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 04:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that your first reason was specious, I suppose. It does increase my understanding. You're assuming you represent the average reader and I don't. But if we asked the average reader of the Steinbeck bio if they'd like to see the image of the actual 15-cent Steinbeck US postage stamp (which hardly any will have) most would say "yes." Now, why would that be? SBHarris 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they like the pretty pictures? Can you give a specific example of the "understanding" that is "increased" by this image? I can give you specific points for many other stamps - they depict elements from a particular school of art, the Postal Service made specific changes from the original photos (like airbrushing out a ciggie), etc. What does this stamp have? Stan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no real need for the image on this article. Stamp dealers' websites feature images of US stamps, so it's quite possible to find images of this stamp elsewhere online. (sigh) wishing that USPS stamps weren't copyrighted... Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowrose02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Knulclunk (notify | contribs).

• Delete: A freely licenced image already exists in the article Gyo Fujikawa so it fails WP:NFCC#3 for minimal use of non-free images and the current prose is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand this stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; 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. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP WP:NFC#Images #3 means that the copyrighted image can't be used to illustrate what a yellow rose looks like, when a free photograph or illustration of a yellow rose may exist. Here, the image is being used to represent the stamp itself which the illustrated designed for the USPS. WP:NFC#Images #3 does not apply.

The stamp's use is important as it was hugely circulated, the most common stamp of it's era, as the corresponding text also mentions. An illustration that is immediately recognizable in a way that a verbose description can not be. Passes WP:NFCC#8. The existing freely licensed image has no bearing in the inclusion of this image. Passes WP:NFCC#3.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing WP:NFCC#3 with WP:NFCC#1. You also haven't explained why the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8; "immediately recognizable" is not the same as "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." —Bkell (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the image would have to be replaced with the following text:

"The recognizable 1997 stamp featured a single yellow rose over white. Fujikawa's illustration shows the blossom large with three green leaves beneath. The rose's stem is shown as having thorns and additional green leaves peek out from the bottom of the frame. The stem itself bends gently to the left to compositionally leave room for the stamp's denomination on the upper right corner. The blossom is rendered in two simple tones, a flat yellow and a mid-orange for the darker areas. The leaves are also rendered in a limited palette, being a simple range of low saturated greens. The materials are handled in a way similar to much of Fujikawa's color work, blocks of similarly saturated hue with variations of brightness for shading. The rendering of the rose itself, however, is more realistic than much of her popular children's illustration and resembles more her other work for the U.S. Post Office. A viewer can see influences from both traditional western scientific flora illustration as well as simple, elegant eastern design motifs."

"The stamp itself is a nearly square portrait layout and printed with a four-color CMYK process. Sold in rolls, the stamps were even along the top, but separated with a curvy cut that resembled an old-fashioned perforation. The self-adhesive stamps had a backing paper that would be discarded. The stamps were printed with a denomination of 32 cents, the cost of mailing a first class letter in 1997. The denomination was printed in black and read "USA 32" in a serif font."

"The stamp would was widely circulated at the time and would be instantly familiar to anyone who used the U.S. Postal system in the late 1990's."

But then it would have to be Wiki-formatted:

"The recognizable^{[original research?]} 1997 stamp featured a single yellow rose over white. Fujikawa's illustration shows the blossom large^{[original research?]} with three green leaves beneath. The rose's stem is shown as having thorns and additional green leaves peek out from the bottom of the frame. The stem itself bends gently to the left to compositionally leave room for the stamp's denomination on the upper right corner. The blossom is rendered in two simple tones, a flat yellow and a mid-orange for the darker areas. The leaves are also rendered in a limited palette, being a simple range of low saturated greens. The materials are handled in a way similar to much of Fujikawa's color work, blocks of similarly saturated hue with variations of brightness for shading. The rendering of the rose itself, however, is more realistic than much of her popular children's illustration and resembles more her other work for the U.S. Post Office. A viewer can see influences from both traditional western scientific flora illustration as well as simple, elegant eastern design motifs."^{[citation needed]}

"The stamp itself is a nearly square portrait layout and printed with a four-color CMYK process.^{[citation needed]} Sold in rolls, the stamps were even along the top, but separated with a curvy cut that resembled an old-fashioned perforation. The self-adhesive stamps had a backing paper that would be discarded.^{[citation needed]} The stamps were printed with a denomination of 32 cents, the cost of mailing a first class letter in 1997.^{[citation needed]} The denomination was printed in black and read "USA 32" in a serif font."

"The stamp would was widely circulated at the time and would be instantly familiar to anyone who used the U.S. Postal system in the late 1990's."^{[citation needed]}

But that would be silly, since the article is about her work and not the stamp. So lets show her work, as we do for every illustrator, artist and musician.--Knulclunk (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed that would be silly, not for the reasons you imply, but because you would not be adding any critical commentary about the stamp itself. All you are doing is describing the stamp in very great detail. You already illustrate a freely licenced stamp by this artist, so any use of this non-free image must specifically show why this stamp itself is notable with some reliable sources AND must pass all 10 criteria which it does not do. A long-winded description of the stamp is totally unnecessary but perhaps some sourced prose about the cultural impact, or something similar, would possibly allow its use and be justified within the fair-use rationale. Good luck, but just sticking a non-free stamp in is unjustified. As a philatelist I don't want to remove stamps without justification but there are, even still, too many blatant misuses of non-free stamps and they need to be removed. Any stamp with a good fair-use rationale will likely stay but in this case you have the additional problem of the already existing free stamp image. Are there any other freely licenced stamps by this designer? ww2censor (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wasn't particularly long winded, just a brief overview of what a casual viewer would glean from the image. The free stamp, though lovely, is atypical of the artist's style and much less common.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there's already one of Fujikawa's US postage stamp designs on the article (one produced by the Post Office Department, so PD-USGov), so why do we need two? Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "A viewer can see influences from both traditional western scientific flora illustration as well as simple, elegant eastern design motifs" is pretty close to sufficient rationale for me, although one needs to cite it. It would also be interesting to point out what has changed vs remained the same in the two stamp designs, separated by 30 years and many changes in technology and design sense. Let's not cheat the reader by throwing up interesting designs and then not saying anything about them! Stan (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is another freely licenced stamp by Gyo Fujikawa to be found here if you think it is appropriate to the article. I cannot find more than 3 US stamps per this page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the other stamp...I'll go ahead and clean it up. I still think the yellow rose is important, but I suppose we'll just be covering it with text. sigh--Knulclunk (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burma Coat of Arms.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fyunck(click) (notify | contribs).

• This coat of arms has been replaced by a high resolution png version and svg version. Neither one uses this jpg as a source image. Gump Stump (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No need for the FFD process: as an orphaned nonfree image, it will be deleted in a week anyway. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the image non-free? It's licensed GDFL/CC-BY-SA-3.0. - Gump Stump (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image I hand drew and uploaded should be perfectly acceptable to wiki. I only drew it because all the other versions I've seen are copyrighted... including the new one you want to replace mine with. I would love for there to be a better pic but it needs to be hand drawn and not simply a recreation of a protected image. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lyricmac (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3 which is what the fair-use rationale states. Also the current prose is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand the stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; 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. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through this before with this stamp; frankly I am getting just a bit tired of all of this.

Let me reiterate what was said the last time this topic came up: The stamp is mentioned in the body of the article as it was a signal honour for Beltran to be recognised by her government as one of the singular figures in the history of popular Mexican music; sans stamp, the body of the article would possibly need to be re-written to exclude mention of same, since the reader might need the illustration of the stamp as a point of reference-years of teaching has taught me that not all of us visualise in quite the same way. However, that is simply the opinion of an old and (probably) obsolete teacher. I do not wish to seem petulant, however this is not the first time I have had to defend my uploading of this image, and I have more pressing matters that need my attention.

I herewith wash my hands of this matter; do as you wish.--Lyricmac (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"to illustrate person mentioned in article", as given in the fair use rationale, isn't a valid reason for having a nonfree image. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2009 (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: Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vito Roberto Palazzolo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mafia_Expert (notify | contribs).

• Image depicts a living person, so would normally be considered replaceable. However, the subject is a recluse, therefore probably worthy of a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless some Italian prison guards are editors of the English Wikipedia, I hope that nobody will get a chance to get a picture of this guy. I can't remember his name, but I'm pretty sure that there's at least one other person (I think it's an American author) who has been allowed to be illustrated with a nonfree image because he's amazingly reclusive. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I read this again, it sounds rather absurdly-written. I was trying to say "altogether nonreplaceable, so this is an exception to the no-nonfree-images-for-identification-of-living-people" standard. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Vito Roberto Palazzolo tends to shed publicity due to reason that are obvious reading the article about him. That makes it very hard, not to say outright impossible, to have a free image. - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm actually not a fan of WP:NFCC#1, but the history of its application is such that "does not want to be photographed" is generally not considered sufficient evidence that no free version could be created now or in the future. If anyone wants to write a more forgiving policy, I'd be all for that, but under existing policies I don't believe criminals in hiding should be exempt. Dragons flight (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's currently in prison, not in hiding. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article seems to indicate that he is living in South Africa while fighting extradition to Italy. He was apparently convicted, in absentia, in Italy, but has never served any time for that conviction. If that is incorrect, then the intro of the article needs to be changed. Dragons flight (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I misread it then...sorry. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm compelled by the J. D. Salinger precedent. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, it should be cropped to just his face (and probably made black and white), to focus just on the information of depicting him and to minimize the extent to which it makes use of anything copyrightable in the original photograph. Our non-free image policy focuses too much on free content policy issues such as "replaceability," to the neglect of legal issues that would make WP use of non-free images fall more solidly under fair use. Postdlf (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vigil1936.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hammersfan (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#8: The use does not significantly increase reader’s understanding of the article. There is no need to illustrate the event. The article barely mentions the painting; there is no critical commentary on the painting, its genre or technique, or the school to which the artist belongs. —teb728 t c 20:48, 5 June 2009 (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: Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capitolprison1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlexPlank (notify | contribs).

• Not used. Unverifiable source. Damiens.rf 20:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to commons (so tagged now). Found the source, worked out the subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (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: Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capitolprison2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlexPlank (notify | contribs).

• Not used. Unverifiable source. Damiens.rf 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to commons (so tagged now). Found the source, worked out the subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DoS SHA.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenealyh (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete file replaced with File:Superior Honor Award.svg The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:40, 5 June 2009 (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.