< April 20	April 22 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by File:Partial_accidentals.svg —Wahoofive (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OB:replaced by File:Beamed_notes.svg —Wahoofive (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary nothing. Replaceable by words —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary nothing. Replaceable by words or by free image —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary nothing. Replaceable by words and already a similar image exists. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary nothing. Replaceable by words or countless free images of homosexual men kissing. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Like in many song-related articles, a screenshot of the music video illustrates one of the main promotional tools for these kind of works. In the case of "Beautiful", illustrating it's music video is especially important, because the song has had a big impact in the LGBT community, in great part because of it's video; also, the video earned Aguilera a GLAAD Media Award. Words can do little to illustrate this, and the image is definitely not replaceable by "countless free images of homosexual men kissing", because these images would hold little or no relation to Aguilera or the song. These kind of visual tools contribute in making an article better, and easier to understand for most readers. I'm not sure what Indianbio means by saying that the image lacks "critical commentary"; the text below it, in the article, clearly and concisely states that Aguilera won a GLAAD Award for the positive portrayal of LGBT people in the video. What more commentary do you need? Can someone provide examples of what critical commentary for a screenshot of a music video is? Summing up: 1) The file is not replaceable by free content, but the image itself is not a replacement for the music video; 2) It contributes greatly in illustrating the cultural impact of the song; 3) It makes the article more reader-friendly. Glosoli87 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- In response to your points: 1) Yes, it is replaceable by free content. Stating that the video contains images of men kissing will achieve all that this achieves without the use of non-free content. 2) How does it illustrate the cultural impact of the song? It's a picture of two men kissing. If there has been cultural impact, talk about it, by all means, but I am failing to see why we need a picture. 3) There's nothing in the NFCC about making articles "reader friendly". There is, however, a need for images to add significantly to reader understanding. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's two guy's kissing. I don't think the article's going to be seriously lacking without it. Pretty clearly fails NFCC#8, and NFCC#1 as everything significant this illustrates can be summarised using free text. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary nothing. Replaceable by words and also fails WP:NFCC#3a, there's already an alternate cover art version containing the similar image —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a, no critical commentary nothing. Also the multiple image fail is due to the same screenshot from the music video being used as the single artwork. The coverarts are by default kept, so no need of the music video one unless it increases reader's understanding of the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Image is used to show the reader a comparison with the discussed "Addicted to Love" video. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced commentary is as good as no commentary about the video and the image. Would you mind finding critical commentary regarding this image and the said role reversal? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has now. Also, the single cover is not the same as the screenshot. Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary is only about the music video, not about the image. The image tells you nothing about the music video (it's just a non-free image of five people), so the image needs to be deleted. --13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary screenshot. Article does not have any discussion about the production that require this scene. Fails NFCC#8 MASEM (t) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the screenshot should stay. The image is clearly captioned about the hunting of the ghost throughout the episode and the screenshot clearly shows "ghost hunting". Also it's good to have a nice screenshot on an episode article. - Limbsaw - (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our non-free content policy has a significantly high bar for inclusion of non-free images. Just being a nice picture or an image that displays "ghost hunting" is not appropriate reasons to include. We need to have an image that is of significant discussion within the article to merit an image. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a non-free photo of two of the characters in the episode together with something which looks like a modified lampshade. Doesn't affect the understanding of the article at all, so violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping data with no context or description presented, In addition this looks like an extract from commerical mapping, (which should be replaced with a 'free' map source like OSM.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag image, but no context or description given, Image also does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mountain, but no context or further description is given. No assertion of notability asserted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of an unidentified indvidual, Notability of image subject not determinable from description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of an unidentified indvidual, Notability of image subject not determinable from description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of an unidentified indvidual, Notability of image subject not determinable from description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image lacking description, notability of subject not asserted in description. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: speedy delete G5 - uploaded by a sockpuppet of an indef'd user. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a possible hoax or from an unreliable source. Major League Baseball has not officially released the logos for the 2013 World Series yet. The image description page looks like it was merely copied and pasted from last year's logo, replacing "2012" with "2013" -- this results in a broken external link to the image's source. It is also not currently listed in the usual source we get the World Series logos from.[1] Furthermore, this is a very low quality ((BadJPEG)), another reason it might not be official. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Deleted all orphaned files and one with no rationale for its current article. Kept the rest. With only one editor offering a definite opinion on which stay or go, I'm deferring to the discretion of the related article's editors - Peripitus (Talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other discussions at [2], Commons DR, and User talk:Werieth#Sri Lankan banknotes close.

File:Cur sl 1 1963.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - suggested as a possible keep as representative sample

File:Cur sl 1 1963 r.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cur sl 50 1974.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - suggested as a possible keep as representative sample

File:Cur sl 50 1974 r.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cur sl 10 1971.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cur sl 100 1977.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - suggested as a possible keep as representative sample

File:Cur sl 100 1977 r.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cur sl 5 1982.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - suggested as a possible keep as representative sample

File:5 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:10 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:20 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:50 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:100 SL Rupees Banknote Obverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:100 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SriLanka-500 Rupees-1981 f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:500 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1000 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:500 SL Rupees Banknote Obverse 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) - suggested as a possible keep as representative sample

File:500 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1000 SL Rupees Banknote Obverse 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1000 SL Rupees Banknote Reverse 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

These notes were originally raised in an NFCR discussion. The close itself was a non-admin close and the reasoning is certainly disputable, so I have brought them here. I believe that it would be acceptable to choose one or two representative samples and keep those, while deleting the bulk of them. It is also worth noting that a whole bunch of them are on Commons where they will soon be deleted, so if we want representative samples from those years, they should be copied here. I am hoping that opinions might be in the form of delete all, keep all, or keep representative samples. If we choose to keep representative samples, these are the ones I would suggest: File:Cur sl 1 1963.jpg, File:Cur sl 50 1974.jpg, File:Cur sl 10 1971.jpg, File:Cur sl 100 1977.jpg, File:Cur sl 5 1982.jpg, File:500 SL Rupees Banknote Obverse 1987.jpg, File:Cur sl 10 copy.jpg (which would need to be copied from Commons), File:Cur sl 1000 copy.jpg (which would need to be copied from Commons), File:Cur sl 20 (new) copy.jpg (which would need to be copied from Commons), and File:Lkr 200 f copy.jpg (which would need to be copied from Commons). --B (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep small representative sample Werieth (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. It's generally agreed that there are no narrowly legal issues with fair-use of these images (and similar presentations of other countries' banknotes). Nor is there a problem with NFCC #1 ("replaceability"). The question is how relevant we think these images are to the understanding readers get of the topic (NFCC #8), and whether the same level of understanding could be achieved with fewer (NFCC #3). The fact that the legal position is so uncontroversial (these images are massively widely circulated already, so won't be made less exclusive by use here; use here won't have any negative impact on the purpose they were first created for, or any significant commercial impact) puts them in a separate class to the images usually considered in WP:NFLISTS, something that was noted and accepted when NFLISTS was first adopted, and when images were largely removed from character lists and discographies. The other point is that they were recognised as much less tangential to the subject of the articles than those images: a fundamental property of a banknote is what it looks like -- this is its defining characteristic, what sets it apart from other notes. And there was also a feeling that, with no likely legal issue, this was exactly the sort of relevant, real-world information that WP should be providing. It's just the kind of encyclopedic information that people come here for: What do the banknotes of country X look like? When legal fair-use exists pretty much exactly for the purpose of us (or other information resources) being able to answer questions like that, I can't see any worthwhile reason for us not to do so, and not to be properly comprehensive. This is part of what WP is for. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question: wouldn't a sample be just as good, my strong view is: No. This is partly because (i) it really isn't objectionable, legally -- this is recognisably what an encyclopedia is for; and (ii) because the information from showing the whole set is valuable. It lets people find out, in a systematic organised way, what a particular denomination banknote looks like. And it also shows the range, themes, similarities and differences of the notes -- what are the thematic elements in common; what are the elements that are distinctive; how do those relate to the overall design. The key test here is NFCC #8: are additional images (weighted against the negligible copyright taking they represent; and considering also the generally sober way in which the image group is presented) adding additionally to the understanding that readers are getting of the topic, sufficiently to justify their presence. In my view, the answer to that question is yes. Jheald (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the law is not the only issue - our fair use policies are intentionally more restrictive than the law permits us to be. The purpose of Wikipedia is not just to create an encyclopedia, but to create a free content encyclopedia and using unlicensed content or content that is not under a free license detracts from that goal. WP:NFCC #3a requires that we make minimal use - we don't use multiple items under a claim of fair use if a smaller number can convey the "equivalent significant information." So the question is not, is it legal for us to show all of them (which of course we would all agree it is), but, rather, what is the minimum we can show for you to have an understanding of the topic Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee. --B (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first up, the test is not whether you can have an understanding of the topic -- the test is that the understanding you could have of the topic should not be significantly diminished.

Secondly, I think it is an error to baldly say that "the purpose ... [is] to create a free content encyclopedia and unlicensed content or content that is not under a free license detracts from that goal." The policy is more subtle than that. Yes, our m:mission is "to collect and develop educational content under a free license ... and to disseminate it effectively and globally." But the decision was taken very early on that we were not going to be a free-content-only encyclopedia; and the Foundation also ruled very early on that this was fully compatible with the GFDL, because the non-free content was readily severable, so the freedom of the free content was not impaired.

The line WP:NFC aims to draw isn't to regard NFC as some kind of 'stain' on WP, but rather to recognise that it can valuably support our mission, by making WP a better, more useful, more comprehensive resource, that people are going to be more motivated to contribute their free content to -- but only if we can be sure the NFC in no way conflicts with that free content: specifically, as the mission puts it, the collecting and development of the free content, and its effective and global dissemination. This is why the legal angle is so important (which NFCC #3 is a fundamental part of), and why the policy goes significantly beyond the legal by emphasising the NFCC #1 angle so strongly too.

But where does that leave us for images, for which it seems generally agreed that there is no legal problem, nor an NFCC #1 problem? I would argue that there is a third important factor, if somewhat less tangible, which is WP's reputation. We are about free content, so if readers have a sense that when we do use NFC, that we use it conservatively, sparingly, appropriately, that IMO is a very good and useful thing. And this is where I think NFCC #3 and #8 come together -- or, as U.S. courts sometimes put it, we should be seen to be using "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified"; and also it helps if the NFC is presented in as visually understated a way as possible.

There are some definite issues with the article as it is at present. For one thing, the images are much too big. Wikiproject:Numismatics's recommendation is that images are scaled "at 0.7 pixels per millimeter", or failing that 100 pixels per long side. These images have something like nine times that area each. Making the images smaller would go a long way towards making the NFC use less visually obtrusive, and more appropriately understated. Secondly, I believe it is probably a mistake to try to show more than two series of banknotes maximum in this way in one article. That isn't to say that more than two series of banknotes shouldn't be covered per country, but if we do then such additional series should probably be split off into their own sub-articles. Making this limit, and reducing the size of the notes shown, should IMO reduce the visual impact to one that readers would feel was appropriate to the treatment of the topic, and, rather than any threat, in my opinion would see it become an asset to WP's reputation.

Collating real-world information in a systematic and comprehensive way is something that WP can do really well, often producing a resource that is simply better than anything anywhere else on the net. The world's currencies are a proper encyclopedic subject, and IMO we ought to be stepping up to the plate. It is also just the kind of thing that, done well, actually attracts people to contribute and to become editors here. It shouldn't be a threat, legally, contributively, or reputationally. Being properly systematic and comprehensive IMO is more appropriate, and does give more encyclopedic understanding than just a couple of bills. This is part of the "sum of all knowledge", that WP according to our m:vision statement, is here to help people to be able to share. Jheald (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS tell that we shouldn't use too many non-free images, and there is no critical discussion of the individual images. Also, some of them look duplicative, in particular the reverse sides with dancers. This is more or less the same situation as WP:NFC#UUI §2 with the difference that we are not talking about music but about currency. However, a small number needs to be kept for representation. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer some of these points: as noted above, currency articles were specifically considered not to be an issue when WP:NFLISTS was discussed and adopted; so it seems somewhat inappropriate to complain that they conflict with it now. They specifically were not banned when images in discographies were banned -- again, as noted above (i) bank-notes have a particular real-world significance; and (ii) while it may be valuable and useful to know how a record was marketed, for a bank-note what it looks like is pretty much its defining characteristic. Also, of course, the information about what the covers looked like was still available elsewhere, in the articles on the albums themselves. Jheald (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 as it is now the only non-free image being used for identification in the infobox. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC, criterion #8 (contextual significance). Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just another cover, one of many, nothing of any particular significance about this one. Jheald (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, the book was released in 1971 in the US and the UK. The US cover is currently in the infobox, and the one up for deletion is the anniversary edition, which is very close to the original UK edition. It's not really "one of many". As one of the two first editions, that cover design is at least as important (as far as covers go) as the US version in the infobox (arguably more important as the author was English). We very often have alternate covers for media in articles... so I'd say keep. – JBarta (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete Apparently the proposer for deletion has not read the section which this image illustrates (the publishing history of "The Day of the Jackal") which discusses the great success of this first novel having sold many millions of copies and being continuously in print for over for over the last 42 years. The illustration is of the cover of the "40th Anniversary Edition" of the book published in 2011 by Hutchinson & Co., the original publisher, showing the design used on its first edition in 1971 and published in to commemorate its four decades of success. Therefore this image does not fail WP:NFCC, criterion #8 (contextual significance) but instead perfectly illustrates exactly the context of this section of the article: this book's "Publishing history". Centpacrr (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Centpacrr appears to think that the publishing history of this novel is tremendously important as they have added an entire section devoted to it in the book article. Without evaluating whether the section is WP:UNDUE, which isn't really the purview of this page, one wonders how the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Isn't the wall of text added sufficient to inform the reader? As for the infobox cover, frankly I think Wikipedia has developed a practice of including these kinds of images in infoboxes without any real attention to whether it complies with policy, but rather just because it's nice to have a picture. In any event, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can go through hundreds and thousands of non-free images and argue that they aren't really necessary and nominate them for deletion, but that would be highly counter-productive. You could start with every book cover, then move on to movie posters, then maybe some corporate logos, etc, etc etc... Is that really the direction you want to head towards? Let's build instead of dismantle. And yes... it's a multimedia encyclopedia... it's nice to have a picture. – JBarta (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the added info on publishing history, personally I think it's all useful information and well at home in the article. Thank-you Centpacrr, fine job putting it together. – JBarta (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can tell you that as an author of seven books myself (all non-fiction), the fact that a previously unpublished novelist's first book would become a virtually instantaneous international best seller, has remained so for more then forty years, and would lead the author to writing many more similar highly successful books with worldwide sales now in excess of fifty million copies is a highly unusual and very significant occurrence in the world of international publishing, and the story of how and why that happened is certainly worth at least a two paragraph section (with one relevant illustration which now gives the article a grand total of two) as appropriate and encyclopedic -- and hardly an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If for some reason this particular information does not interest the proposer of the deletion of this image, then he/she is perfectly free to ignore and bypass it. But that does not mean it would be of no interest to anybody else. The illustration is fully appropriate and "contextually significant" to the article. Using the standard that it is "unnecessary to the understanding" of the article is a completely empty argument because it is so broad and subjective that it could be advanced as a "valid" reason to eliminate every one of the millions of image files currently on Wikipedia and therefore a standard that is also all but meaningless.

Is that really what you are suggesting?

What would "significantly increase any viewer's personal understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" could be completely different to you than it would be to me and/or anybody else. I or any other eiditor could propose deleting this image which the proposer uploaded for the very same reason irrespective of whether or not it is free or non-free because it is of no interest to me, does not significantly increase my understanding of the article in which it appears, and its ommission would in no way be detrimental to my understanding, but I would never do that because it certainly is valuable for others understanding. WP is not a fifedom and there are no "Editors-in-Chief", so the default should be for inclusion of images unless there is some egregious flaw in the image that would make exclusion the obvious choice and not the other way around. As it is in any "prosecution" the burden of proof is always on the proposer, and in this case his/her arguments (or really complete absence thereof) for excluding both the new section on the book's remarkable publishing history as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the associated illustration under WP:NFCC criterion #8 (or any other criterion for that matter) fail on both counts. Centpacrr (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." See WP:NFCCE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, those criteria -- especially #8 -- are so broad and subjective to be constructively meaningless for the reasons I stated above. I have given very specific reasons why this image satisfies even the narrowist interpretation of #8 and you have given no reason at all other than you claim presumably that is does not help your personal understanding of the article and that's just not good enough. As I pointed out above, WP is not a fifedom and there are no "Editors-in-Chief". It is instead a community that depends on clear and convincing consensus to delete material, not the personal whims of a single editor especially it he or she is the one proposing deletion. (By the way I provided my "defense" of the image less than an hour after it was posted in here even though you failed to notify me (as the last editor to upload a file to this page) that is was being proposed for deletion as well as being the editor who is using it and I had to discover that on my own.) So please avoid the Wikilawyering and make your case on the merits. If you think my arguments (and those of Jbarta) are faulty then make you case. The ball is in your court.Centpacrr (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It complies as far as I can see. It shows the reader in a way that text alone cannot what the UK first edition and the 40th anniversary edition covers looked like. One cover cannot show what both the US and UK version looks like and both are mentioned in the article. If you want an adequate education about the books in the article, it's quite useful to know what the first edition covers looked like, therefore it is necessary to display the images in order to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the books in question. I feel like I'm jumping though hoops here just to satisfy an admins rather intense desire to get rid of a book cover in an article about the book because he thinks book cover images are a bad idea to start with. Sorta takes all the fun out of things. – JBarta (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be my final comment here, and even this one is undoubtedly a waste of time. I don't participate in deletion discussions very much anymore. I used to do so more before becoming an admin (my nomination here is as an editor - I am not acting in my role as an administrator). I'd forgotten how contentious deletion discussions are. It seems to bring out the worst in one would hope otherwise civil editors. Most of Centpacrr's comments are just plain silly. Jbarta's comments are better; only some of them are silly. Hopefully, we'll get the views of some other editors. Regardless, someone uninvolved will close this discussion and will surely be able to look through all the ~~garbage~~ irrelevant statements and get to the non-silly arguments. Despite Jbarta's mischaracterization of my motives ("rather intense desire" - that's one of the silly ones, btw), I don't much care about the outcome, at least not in this particular case. Life at Wikipedia will go on whether the image is kept or deleted. Knock yourselves out, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 in case you don't realize it, you are the one who started this discussion, and now that you have been called upon to provide your reasons for doing so and respond to the objections of others your response is to say what everybody else says is "silly" and you don't really care anyway. That's just a cop out and an especially inappropriate attitude for an admin. Let me also point out that in addition to what Jbarta says above, the image also has a fully conforming and very well accepted standard "rationalle template" to justify the use of the image in the The Day of the Jackal article, and in fact such an image with this name has been in use on the subject article (originally posted on the file host page in question) since August 8, 2006, a period of almost seven years! By his/her comment above ("As for the infobox cover, frankly I think Wikipedia has developed a practice of including these kinds of images in infoboxes without any real attention to whether it complies with policy, but rather just because it's nice to have a picture."), the proposer has already betrayed his/her prejudice against using any such images anywhere on WP which is contrary to the long standing well accepted consensus of the community at large to use them. That being the case -- and since the proposer now says that he/she doesn't "much care about the outcome" and that life at Wikipedia "will go on whether the image is kept or deleted", the proposer should promptly withdraw his/her nomination to delete this image forthwith as it now does not seem to have been made in good faith to start with, and his/her stated reasons (such as the are) do not conform with the established consensus as to how the community applies WP:NFCC to such images. Centpacrr (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I will say this... if you find yourself not really caring whether an image is deleted or not, you probably shouldn't be nominating it in the first place. – JBarta (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, as it is not in the infobox as identification and not being used to source critical commentary. We don't need to see the 40th anniversary edition to know that there was one. If the cover received extensive discussion in sources, that would be another ball game. Bbb23's rationale was right on the money, although it could have been developed a bit further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again as I pointed out above, the falsely applied standard of "need" is just that: a "false" and "empty" argument because it is so completely subjective. The way it is presented there is actually no "need" for any images or illustrations anywhere on Wikipedia because it can logically be argued no images are ever "needed" to "understand" anything described in in the text. This image is used as a illustration, and the purpose of illustrations is use as adjuncts to text, not as a replacement. The proposer's "rationale" is also no rationale at all, but only a personal statement that he/she doesn't like any such images to be used anywhere on WP at all ("...I think Wikipedia has developed a practice of including these kinds of images in infoboxes without any real attention to whether it complies with policy, but rather just because it's nice to have a picture."), a view with which the community clearly does not agree as the tens of thousands of similar images in use for the same purpose throughout the various WP projects demonstrate. Simply because a particular illustration (or as he/she implies any illustrations anywhere) is of no particular personal interest to this one particular viewer does not mean that it is not a valuable or useful adjunct to illustrate the article to anyone else. WP is a multimedia project in which the use of images and illustrations is encouraged, not discouraged, as opposed to the proposer's stated view that no such images should be used anywhere at all. That is simply not a valid "rationale" to delete this or any other image, and in fact is even less valid as the proposer now also admits that he/she also "doesn't much care about the outcome" indicating that his/her nomination was probably specious to begin with and should be withdrawn. Centpacrr (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the one using the file to show that "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.". You have yet to show this. I am all for the infobox image as identification (a key part in an article about the subject), although in this case about a book by an English writer which was published in Britain either before or simultaneously with the US version, the British cover should be used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crisco 1492. WP:NFC requires the limitation of non-free content. Alternatively, I would support rolling it back to the first edition UK cover that was there after November 2012 before it was overwritten with this anniversary edition and putting that back in the infobox where it formerly was in accordance with long-standing consensus that book articles are illustrated with the first edition cover. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Books says "If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition." Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images says, "First edition covers are preferred." Template:Infobox book says "prefer 1st edition – where permitted.") At that point, the recently uploaded US cover can be (and should be) removed, unless it is supported by sourced commentary about the cover itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US cover in the infobox and the UK cover in the article are both first editions (though technically one is a 40th anniversary copy of the first edition). One was distributed in the UK and one was distributed in the US. And as I said earlier, alternate covers are somewhat common here (1,2) though maybe less common for books. Personally I think the extra cover adds to the article in a useful way, and this sort of severe application of the rules does nobody any good. – JBarta (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the UK edition is "first" by several months. Books may be released in countries all over the world - various international editions are no more "first" than reprints are. While I think WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to your "somewhat common" comment (sadly, I can point out enough copyvios to note that they somewhat common, but they are still not permitted :/), I have to note that Virgin Killer is an excellent example of when a cover is the subject of sourced commentary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the UK edition was first by several months. This goes back to a discussion I had earlier with Centpacrr when he changed the UK cover in the infobox to the US version. From what I had been able to gather, the two editions were released simultaneously. If in fact the UK version was first and the US edition was a later distribution (rather than a simultaneous one) then I would go back to the original UK cover in the infobox and the US cover either in the publication history section... or if folks really really want to see something get deleted here... delete the US cover. – JBarta (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I am truly astounded by the amount of Wikilawyering expended here by some to come with reasons to exclude relevant encyclopedic material about the history of this book, but in order to avoid any further waste of time I will just restore everything to the status quo ante and leave it at that. At least it wasn't a total waste of time for me as I learned lots of interesting information about how this book came to be and its publication history, but as others seem to think that is all WP:OTHERSTUFF I'll just delete it, keep what I've learned to myself, and move along. Centpacrr (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikilawyering to ask people to follow explicit policies. Perhaps read the essay? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I find the interpretations of the "explicit policies" as applied by some here to be faulty and counterproductive for the reasons I have stated above. I've said my piece and stand by it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet you've yet to provide evidence the file meets WP:NFCC#8, which is what you (as the end user) are required by policy to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been changing a lot recently. One of the images in Special:PermanentLink/551637169 needs to be deleted per WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the US cover, placed the original UK cover in the infobox and restored all the material Centpacrr added. The article now has one image in it. We can call this a wrap? – JBarta (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I spoke too soon. I guess we're not done after all. Welcome to planet Centpacrr. – JBarta (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this on the topic of whether that US version needs to be in the article... as people are reading about the publication history and that US first edition, they may wonder what it looks like. At the moment, the answer is there in the article. If someone wants it removed, you're essentially saying to the reader You don't need to know that... and if you think you really do, you'll have to find it somewhere else. What do you think this is, an encyclopedia? (a little humor intended, but you get the idea) – JBarta (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been quite satisfied with your proposed solution, fwiw. :) But can't that same argument be extended to all of the book jackets that have graced that book? The "dozens more print and audio editions" to which the article refers? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered that myself. The answer is, yes, it can. Actually it occurred to me that a gallery of all the covers might be rather interesting. Unfortunately rather interesting doesn't trump the rules. One might say then that we're serving the rules instead of the rules serving us. But that's another discussion altogether. For practical purposes here, considering the rules and practices as they are, one cover in the infobox is reasonable and two is pushing it. However, in this case I think allowing the second cover is arguably reasonable as well, especially since Centpacrr has added quite a bit of interesting infomation in that area and about that edition, and given the importance of that edition in the history of the novel. – JBarta (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no galleries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion in the article doesn't mention the American cover, only the book itself. I don't think this fulfills the "detrimental to an understanding of the subject" clause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. Centpacrr (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now it does, but not in a way that not seeing the cover would be detrimental to a reader's understanding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... in your subjective opinion." How you expect the reader to know what the cover looks like without seeing it is a mystery to me. Remember this section of the article is about the remarkable continuous four decade publishing history of this author's first novel. If you are not interested in the first US edition cover and don't think it helps your "understanding" of it that's fine, but that does not mean it doesn't help anybody else. Guidelines (which are not "policies") are meant to serve the editors, not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the burden of evidence is on you to show that not having the cover would be detrimental to ones understanding of the subject. Four decades is nice and all, but compare Frankenstein: nearly two centuries of publication history there and not a fair-use image to be found (including first US version). Any single cover is not going to be reflective of two-hundred years of history; forty is still a huge stretch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC "documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules the cover itself must be the object of discussion in sources. For instance if the cover was somehow controversial and the cover design itself made the news for some reason. Or maybe if the cover was highly unusual. Such is not the case here. It's just an ordinary book cover. And simply being the book cover, no matter how signiificant in the publishing history of the book, does not get past strict application of the rules. Personally I think the cover can stay anyway. It's like the cop who has nothing better to do, so he pulls you over and tickets you for going 2mph over the speed limit. He puffs up and points his fat little doughnut-stained finger to the rule book... "See, it says the speed limit is 55... article 4, section 3, paragraph 2, line 1. You were going 57. If we let this slide, pretty soon EVERYBODY will be going 180 miles per hour and there will be death and destruction and utter chaos.... all because YOU think you're above the rules. If you don't like it, tell it to the judge." What can you do? It is what it is. It's all part of the grand Wikipedia experience.
At any rate, this deletion discussion should be closed as kept because this image now happily resides in the infobox, and as long as that's fine with other editors, it can stay there. If we're still hot after deleting one of the images, it should probably be the US cover... so close this and open another for the US cover. Or simply close this, remove the US cover from the article and hope it stays that way. – JBarta (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the British cover in the infobox for identification. As for a strict interpretation... the editor(s) who wish to keep the image in the article have yet to show how not having a cover is detrimental to (average) readers' understanding. A cover is a cover is a cover, and unless it's discussed in detail as part of a controversy or praise section there isn't much of a difference between the US and UK cover when it comes to illustrating the publication history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing it's detrimental to is the fact that with the image, the reader sees what the US cover looks like... and without it, he doesn't. We can either decide he might like to see it... or we can decide he doesn't need to. It's pretty simple. His understanding is furthered or diminished by precisely that amount. – JBarta (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the publishing history section is being expanded in an increasingly absurd manner in a desperate attempt to provide a rationale for keeping the second cover. I'm all for keeping the image... but not like this. This is not a useful solution. – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now considerably trimmed down. Centpacrr (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul Bacon's iconic cover design"? Who calls this design "iconic"? :/ "In contrast to the stark black cover used by Huchinson for the UK editions' jacket, Viking commissioned the noted American designer Paul Bacon to create the cover for first US edition which featured the back half of a jackal and the assassin's eye view of a circular telescopic rifle sight with a victim centered in its crosshairs against a white background." This seems to be supported by (at least is referenced to)( a school assignment page at an Illinois college. The only reference to Bacon I find is "Jacket design by Paul Bacon." You have to have sources that actually support the text in your articles. I'm removing the use of this image from the article on Paul Bacon (designer) as it fails WP:NFCI. You may be able to make a case for it here, but you have no case for it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've tried to be reasonable but I guess that no good deed goes unpunished so in order to avoid the slings and arrows of further wikilawyering I've removed everything I've added and you are free to delete both image files without any further attempts to defend them by me. Please don't restore my "publishing history" section it can probably be attacked as "original research" anyway. At least I learned some information that is personally interesting about the book in working on it, but it's not really worth it to me to continue with this whack-a-mole exercise to try to defend it. I've always tried to interpret the project's guidelines in a way that serve the community as opposed to the other way around, but in this case that has reached the point of diminishing returns so as much as I disagree with your position I'll just withdraw from this kerfuffle and move on to other things. Centpacrr (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's gone. We are back to a single image in the infobox of the first edition. I would believe that this is within policy and guideline. (With regards to the content itself, whether it stays out or not would be up to editors of the article, of course.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I had originally created and was the only editor to contribute anything to the former "publishing history" section in which no other editors have or had expressed any interest in developing other than to opine that it was "silly" and/or constituted WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there does not now really seem to be any point or benefit in restoring any or all it to the article. It was fun for me while it lasted as I learned quite a bit or interesting information about the book and how it came to be written, however it no longer appears worth the effort to keep it or to try to justify its encyclopedic and/or educational value to others with no interest in the subject. Centpacrr (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Moonriddengirl, I really don't see why you are SO determined that no representation of the 1971 Viking first US edition cover should ever be allowed to appear in the The Day of the Jackal article ANYplace in ANY form at ANYtime other than perhaps knee jerk NIH factor which now seems to me to be the only possible explanation. (A claim of blanket FFD "project consensus" really seems to me to be empty in this instance for the reasons already stated elsewhere. Each case is different and unique and should be based on the totality of factors relating to the subject.) I have to wonder if you have actually read the article or know why both first edition (UK and US) covers are significant for this particular book. With respect this seems to me to be instead a prime example of seeking to find the narrowest possible interpretation of the "rules" (actually guidelines) to the detriment of the real purpose of the Wiklipedia project by forcing its contributors to be servants of the "rules" as opposed to instead allowing WP's guidelines to serve the interests of the community. I would thus urge you and others so disposed to reacquaint themselves with the actual objectives of Wikipedia Project which, among other things, is to employ WP:BOLD to expand knowledge and understanding, not to find every possible excuse to restrict it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think if it were a free image, that would be a better argument. But these covers are non-free files. They are copyrighted. These are not our images to use, except under a claim of fair use. And fair use, as has been established by Wikipedia policy, is pretty clear. Again, I'm all for bending the rules and letting the second cover stay. But if other editors resist bending the rules, there's not a whole lot we can do. Again, remember... it's not our image to freely use. It's someone else's copyrighted image you're talking about. – JBarta (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is allways going to be friction between inclusionists like myself and WP's small but determined cadre of exclusionists, but I still intend to always favor and promote inclusion of images and other material when I believe that it helps improve an article. Also while both images are indeed copyrighted and thus subject to the provisions of 17USC§107 ("Fair Use"), as stated in the standard rationale for use of such images on WP is the statement that the "image in this form is already widely distributed to identify the book as part of catalogs and reviews" and thus use on WP does not in any way "degrade market value" (the actual purpose of copyright protection) but in fact enhances it (albeit marginally) by providing additional free publicity that promotes the product. No copyright holder that I am aware of (including myself with the covers of my own seven books) ever objects to that. Centpacrr (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, I gotta say... that is probably the first time I completely agree with you. – JBarta (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Community consensus as quoted above is that first edition images are published in the infobox. If you want to include a second cover, you need to make it compliant with WP:NFC (or get consensus to change WP:NFC) Making it into a collage doesn't help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, in the case of this particular book there is not just one but are two significant "first editions" which were published two months apart in the summer of 1971 in the UK (June 7) and US August 6). If you were to take the time to actually read the former "publishing history" section which I had written (as well as the various sources cited therein) you would understand why both are equally important and thus including both as a collage is both encyclopedic and an appropriate exception to the rule. Every situation is unique and thus no single "rule" (or guideline) applies equally to every circumstance which is one of the reasons for WP:BOLD. Again guidelines are meant to serve the community and not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one first edition. I know this because I read the "publishing history" section which you had written. The American publishers were inspired by the success of the British publication to take a chance as well. The article says so, and sources it nicely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have had no first hand experience in the publishing industry and thus don't understand both how unusual and significant the publication of a US first edition from a stand still was just two months after the very small first printing of UK edition was released, especially when that title soon became #1 on the NYT "Best Seller List" (fiction) and still remains in print in the US some 42 years later. Regretfully instead this seems to be more of a "NIH" deletion intended to force the community to counterproductively "serve the rules" as noted above. I stand by my position that in the case of The Day of the Jackal a composite of both covers in the article is encyclopedic and an appropriate exception to the general rule on first edition covers for the reasons I gave and that are also supported by the sources cited. Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reinstated and trimmed the publication history as it's a section that's nice to see in all book articles and particularly for this article. Also, my preference would be to have the image of the 1st ed in the infobox. Sorry, haven't read all of the discussion above. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep the first edition image in the infobox; this is why we have this well-established practice, so we don't have to get into contentious debates like this. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it's been a pleasure for me. What you really mean, though, is keep, at least now that it's a single image (I don't know at what point you looked at it - it's chameleon-like). You don't want to delete the image; you just want to keep it out of the body. And, of course, it's no longer in the body, just in the infobox, at least as of the last time I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThe current and only version of this image is now a 255px wide scan of the original 1971 UK first edition cover scanned from an original document and being properly used in the article's infobox. Centpacrr (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by File:B-tree.svg Fuebar (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image made obsolete by media in Commons Fuebar (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If useful for any purpose, it should be recreated as an SVG file anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan made obsolete by File:Multimeasure_Rest.svg Fuebar (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan made obsolete by File:Dotted_notes3.svg Fuebar (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media not discussed critically--there are lots of free pieces of media depicting Tesla. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable with free media. GregorB (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 15#File:Tetsugaku.jpg, but the bot apparently closed the discussion before it ended because someone decided to move the file. The old discussion needs a proper closure. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Discussions about whether PD-US-not renewed aside, licence appears to have been converted to a valid fair use rationale. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The book appears to be ((PD-US-not renewed)), but as this is a 3D photo of the book, we need permission from the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the image to a cropped version. This is NOT a 3D image. It is merely a scan of the front cover of a sheet music cover copyrighted in 1927 in the U.S.

I thought that scans and simple photographs of two dimensional works were considered derivative. Under fair use law in the US, unless the photograph demonstrates some originality or is transformative in nature, there is no second copyright, obviating the need to obtain permission from the photographer. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, there is nothing 3D about it. Even in its uncropped form, there is no original or creative content around the book even remotely deserving of copyright. That said, I straightened and cleaned up the image. As far as being PD-not renewed, there may be a copyright notice anywhere on or in the booklet... so I don't think we can say that with any certainty. – JBarta (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of furniture around the cover on the first image. About ((PD-US-not renewed)), I checked that the name Glenn Miller doesn't appear in the book section of the Catalog of Copyright Entries 27, 28 and 29 years after publication of the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Catalog of Copyright Entries but I'll take your word for it. So, any copyright concerns you had for the photographer are no more because the background is cropped away, right? And you will change it to PD-not renewed and add "To Commons" (and maybe even move it to Commons) and we're all done here, right? – JBarta (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not needed for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 21

File:Partial accidentals.gif

File:Beamed notes.gif

File:PeroMeAcuerdoDeTiMusicVideo.png

File:FalsasEsperanzasMusicVideo.png

File:LadyMarmaladeChristina.jpg

File:Christina Aguilera - Beautiful music video.png

File:You lost me video.png

File:Miflaw2.JPG

File:Psychic Emma Grayling & Prof. Alec Palmer demanding to make contact with 'The Witch of the Well'.png

File:Msanmartinhidalgomap.jpg

File:Mpa2008.png

File:Mountint.jpg

File:Street Scholar2.jpg

File:Street Scholar8.jpg

File:Street Scholarpic1.jpg

File:Criticalrun.jpg

File:2013 World Series logo.jpg

Sri Lankan banknotes

File:FrederickForsyth TheDayOfTheJackal.jpg

File:B-tree.png

File:Common time signatures.png

File:Multimeasure rest.gif

File:Dotted notes3.gif

File:Teslabust adjusted.jpg

File:Garden of Philosophy on the Gellert Hill, Budapest, Hungary.jpg

File:Melrose Bros. 125 Jazz Breaks 1927 Glenn Miller.jpg

File:Jennifer Lopez - Papi (Music Video).jpg