- 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. The arguments were split pretty evenly, but consensus is determined by the strength of these arguments. The policy-based rationales carried almost the entire weight in this discussion, and it has been determined that a non-free image of this certificate is not justifiable under the current WP:NFCC policy. ℯxplicit 00:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Photograph of 1983 Colonel Watson Award, presented by the Ontario Association for Curriculum Development.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pedantic068 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader would like to keep an extremely high resolution non-free image (7.16 Megapixels). I appreciate that the reduction to the (0.1 Megapixel) guideline would significantly blur the image. I'm not sure what size is best for this image, and I think it needs a much wider discussion. Personally I can't see the full image in its entirety (my screen settings are not big enough, but I can still read it at delivered size of 1100 x 938). I suspect the ability to be able read the image is going to depend so much on the user's machine/monitor - I would also think our mobile users are probably going to struggle. Maybe we should consider using the text in the article as a blockquote and showing a tiny image - just for an overall feel of the document layout? Ronhjones (Talk) 21:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for opening the discussion @Ronhjones:. I am using a 13" monitor and the text on the 1,202 × 1,024 pixels version of the image is just legible when I use the enlarge option in the Media Viewer. The image doesn't really have any value as a pure illustration; but I feel that copying the text into the article as a blockquote would really lessen the reader's understanding of the significance/impact of the award under discussion. The actual image as shown in the article is already quite small. Pedantic068 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would require a Non-free use rationale and right now there is no version of a Non-free use rationale for text so it has to be a image per Wikipedia rules 72.73.79.36 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comment 72.73.79.36. I believe the rationale provided on the image description page does satisfy all the non-free fair use criteria, including the size restrictions noted in the image use policy (i.e., “There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger.”). Pedantic068 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The reason the large size is being requested is due to the text in the material. This can be accomplished by transcribing the material and using it as an attributed block quote as suggested by user:Ronhjones. An image of the award itself is not needed to understand that the award was given, and as such fails to meet the significance test. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your input @Whpq:. It is important to note that The Colonel Watson Award is a quite esoteric award and the awarding organization does not publish any information about it on its site. Therefore the average reader will not be aware of it, nor will he/she be able to research it further using other internet sources. The image therefore serves a dual purpose: as well as providing the text (assuming that text is legible), it also reinforces the award's significance and credibility (in a similar manner to a diploma). I sincerely do not believe a block text quote would achieve that purpose. [Edit: adding signature as forgot to do so earlier] Pedantic068 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — I don't think quoting an entire document is allowed? But in any case, Wiki's Verifiability Policy says that a citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and as the information is apparently not available elsewhere we would need to cite the certificate/photo as our reliable source, which surely leads us back to allowing the photo at a size at which the text is legible? BertisF (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails NFCC#8, all necessary information can be conveyed by text alone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point is that the image is the reference we would need to cite for the quoted text, so we will need to make the image available in any case, whether we quote the text, or include the image itself in the article. Pedantic068 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In response to @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:'s comment above, are we now moving on to discussing the noteworthiness of the award itself?
This is what I have so far been able to discover through online research:
1. The Colonel Watson Award is awarded by an association named the Ontario Association for Curriculum Development and is “given annually to the person who had done the most to further curriculum change.”
https://archive.org/stream/reportofministe1968onta/reportofministe1968onta_djvu.txt
(see pp40-41)
2. This institution (http://ascd.ca/ascd/on/) does not publish information about the award on its website.
3. It appears to be a long-running (at least 50 years) award. Previous recipients include the following:
Maxwell B. Parnall (1967)
https://archive.org/stream/reportofministe1968onta/reportofministe1968onta_djvu.txt]
(see p40-41)
Blanche E Snell (1971)
https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED081065/ERIC_ED081065_djvu.txt
(see p88, entitled “THE COLONEL W.ATSON AWARD”)
B.E. Nelligan (1978)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q_nzi4S70JIC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=%22The+Colonel+Watson+Award%22+%22Ontario+Association+for+Curriculum+Development%22&source=bl&ots=eFo9x6FLgR&sig=L-NiCfofiz6ztuckQkKaBE35d20&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4sIn8ztfZAhXkDsAKHXLIA7MQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Colonel%20Watson%20Award%22%20%22Ontario%20Association%20for%20Curriculum%20Development%22&f=false
Floyd G. Robinson (1983)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=IUMmAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22colonel+Watson%22
Dale E. Shuttleworth (1988)
ref. https://docslide.com.br/documents/biographical-note-dale.html
Michael Fullan (1993)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=peSe3jDzAI4C&pg=PA126&dq=%22The+Colonel+Watson+Award%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPxpuBmt3ZAhUJCsAKHceoAr8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Colonel%20Watson%20Award%22&f=false
Peter G. Jaffe (1994)
http://learningtoendabuse.ca/about/faculty-staff/jaffe
Ouida Wright (1991)
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thestar/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=150432834
There is also a reference to the award here, which I cannot access as it requires a subscription:
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22Colonel+Watson+Award%22
So as I mentioned above, this is an esoteric award, but appears to be prestigious within the education community--it is referenced in Ministry of Education documents, various books as linked above, in a list of awards that includes the Order of Canada (see Peter G. Jaffe, above), and a Toronto Star obituary--so is surely “noteworthy” enough to mention in the context of the article?
Pedantic068 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're overcomplicating the issue, and missing the main point. If there is independent, reliable sourcing, there's no need to reproduce the image as a reference. If there is no independent, reliable sourcing, the award claim should not be included in the article, so there's no need to reproduce the image as a reference. And our NFCC criteria simply don't include "need to show the image to prove a claim which can be clearly stated in prose". Regardless of which situation holds, the image must be delated for failing NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not over-complicating the issue—I was addressing your assertion that the Colonel Watson Award itself is not noteworthy enough to warrant a mention. Pedantic068 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding sourcing, I have just double-checked the requirements on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The independent reliable source in this case is the award certificate (i.e., “the piece of work itself”), which has been published and distributed by authors (The Ontario Association for Curriculum Development) who are “regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject” (curriculum development). This is a published (“in traditional printed format”) source “for which an archived copy exists”, as evidenced by the photo. As I understand it, this fulfulls all the requirements for an independent reliable source. I note it is not a Wiki requirement for the archived copy to be available online. Pedantic068 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You understand incorrectly. The award certificate is not independent of the award or the award-giver, as a source. Nor is my "World's Greatest Grandpa" trophy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The certificate is a document that has been published by an organisation that is a recognized authority on curriculum development. Can you say the same about your World's Greatest Grandpa trophy? Pedantic068 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuff on Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. That image could easy be PhotoShopped to show anything you want - e.g. the name of the person being in a different font and colour could have been removed and replaced with another name. The Reliable Source is where it has been properly published - the image pages clearly says A digital version of this photo has been published elsewhere. - I think that could be your Reliable Source. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:37, 10 March 2018 (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.
