Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 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 all, including Peoria County. The Peoria ones are non in use, and improvements can always be made to the Commons images that are superior to these. Courcelles 00:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These files have been superceded by more detailed maps at Commons (see Category:Maps of Illinois) and are currently unused. I proposed here and at Commons (here and here) that they be moved to Commons, but there does not appear to be any interest in getting them—they are, after all, lower-quality versions of content which is already on Commons. A trial nomination (here) to determine whether there is consensus on Wikipedia to delete all similar files ended with a result to delete. To avoid accidentally nominating images which are still in use, I will check and nominate the 1,000+ affected files over the course of multiple nominations; see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Peoria County (and Tazewell County) townships, particularly File:City of Peoria Township Peoria.PNG, (see below) File:Kickapoo Township Peoria.PNG, File:Medina Township Peoria.PNG, File:Radnor Township Peoria.PNG as special cases: they show the correct (1991 frozen) border of the City of Peoria Township; their SVG equivalents (File:Map highlighting Peoria City Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg; File:Map highlighting Kickapoo Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg, File:Map highlighting Medina Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg, File:Map highlighting Radnor Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg) erroneously show borders that are actually the later municipal borders of the city of Peoria, which has grown beyond the township. All the township maps for Peoria County have this error; the 4 I've listed here are only the ones where the highlighted township is affected. (In addition, Richwoods Township also has a notch of a few acres in its northwest exclave as well. Also, just to drive you crazy: All the Tazewell County maps in Commons:Category:Maps of Tazewell County, Illinois show this error also, but greyed out, because Tazewell is diagonally contiguous to Peoria.) The "right" solution, of course, is to grab the 2010 U.S. Census geographic data as soon as it comes out and re-render the maps, assuming it's correct. (This was also mentioned in Commons:User talk:Omnedon/Archive#Image:Map highlighting Peoria City Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg may be wrong.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved all of the nominated maps of Peoria County to the bottom of the collapsed list so that they may be more easily identified. I also informed Omnedon of the difference between the .png and .svg maps. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded a new version of File:Map highlighting Peoria City Township, Peoria County, Illinois.svg based on 2009 census TIGER data. Closeapple, can you see if this has resolved the issue? If it has, I can upload new versions for the other townships in the county as well. Omnedon (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The borders look right to me just from a quick eyeballing. A few highways seem to be missing. It appears to only affect 2-lane highways. Maybe people won't care much, and maybe the omission is an intentional design decision (except for US 24 across Washington, which might not be avoidable with the Census data anyway). Peoria County:
        1. IL 6's north termination connector is missing at IL 29 just northeast of Peoria (in Medina Township). (The data probably says it's an exit ramp, but it's a long strip with a cross street.)
        2. IL 8 has vanished in Knox and Peoria counties; it runs between IL 97 in Knox County, through Elmwood (IL 78) and Peoria across 5 Peoria County townships. It passes over the Illinois River on the same bridge as IL 29 and IL 116 and continues. (It actually has newly appeared in your re-rendering on the Tazewell County side.)
        3. IL 91's north-south line seems to have gone missing except where it shares the highway with other routes. (From IL 90 IL 17 in Wyoming in Stark County (and possibly as far north as US 34/IL 78/IL 93 in Elmira Township, Stark County and Wethersfield Township, Henry County) between Toulon and Kewanee through Akron, Radnor (Dunlap), and Kickapoo Townships, to US 150. It strikes 150 a few hundred yards west of IL 6.)
      • Also, in Knox County:
        1. IL 180 has vanished.
      • Also, in Tazewell/Woodford County:
        1. US 24 is showing the old Business 24 alignment through Washington instead of Boyd Highway across the north of Washington in w:Washington Township, Tazewell County. Maybe the Census doesn't even have the new alignment even though it's been there for years now; the old maps show the same.
        2. IL 26 seems to be completely missing; it runs, from IL 116 at the Tazewell-Woodford county line, north along the Illinois River on the west edge of Woodford County into Marshall County. It's the only route through those townships.
        3. IL 98 seems to be completely missing; it runs from IL 29 in Pekin Township (between Pekin and North Pekin) to US 150 in Morton in Morton Township.
        4. These are off the Peoria County map, but when you re-render, beware the following 2-lane roads failing: IL 117, a short highway in Woodford, through Eureka; and IL 122 (which didn't render on the old maps either), an east-west from IL 29 to IL 9 in Tazewell County.
      • If the Census data doesn't have those highways in a convenient format, then it's probably not worth the effort. Also, are some of the grey places Census Designated Places instead of municipalities? It makes sense, but threw me off for a moment — for example, Rome in Chillicothe Township south of Chillicothe having its own border. --Closeapple (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, some of the highway data comes from the National Atlas. Basically, these maps consist of shape data from multiple sources, layered together; the census doesn't provide highway data as far as I know. However, I have noticed that the National Atlas data is sometimes not entirely accurate. There are other sources of highway data that I have worked with, including for Illinois, but they are usually provided on a state-by-state basis and are not always freely available, and I have run into other issues with some of them. Basically, it's hard to come up with complete, accurate, free highway data, but I will see what else I can find. My hope was that for purposes of locating townships, the sometimes-slightly-vague National Atlas data would suffice, but personally I'd rather have it as accurate as possible even when highways are not the primary features of the maps. Thanks for your diligence in finding issues. Also, sorry for never having gotten back to this Peoria Township map issue; you informed me of it some time ago and I intended to work on it further, but life got in the way and I frankly forgot about it. Omnedon (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I think of it -- another advantage of the National Atlas data involves maps along state borders. The national atlas data flows across borders seamlessly, as does the census data, but that's hard to accomplish when applying (for example) Indiana and Illinois mapping data from different sources on the same map; lines often don't quite line up at the border. Naturally good data is available; the real trick is getting freely-available data that is also reliable. I have found some Illinois resources, but in one case the highway data ran through 1986 -- 14 years ago. Anyway, I will keep searching as I'd like to have more and better data for various purposes anyway. Omnedon (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Both sides had very good arguments, however, as the image is a little bit up for interpretation as far as the logo goes, I believe it is most prudent to err on the side of caution and delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-Energy Drink.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Editor182 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• The big "M" logo for Monster Energy definitely crosses the threshold of originality therefore this is copyright infringement by derivative work. — raekyT 03:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This image has been used in a featured article since April, although new versions of the file have been uploaded. Copyright infringement involves making a copy of someone else's work without their permission. I took the photograph, this is not the original artwork, and is clearly applied as fair use. I request such photographs of trademarked items not be uploaded to Commons, as it wouldn't be fair use if the file becomes archived and isn't being used. This was the suggestion given to me from administration after such media at Commons was deleted. Copyright infringement is stealing, if a user takes a photograph, they generated that work entirely, and if the photograph taken includes a trademarked item, it can be used for descriptive purposes only, it's fair use. It is also worth mentioning that Raeky, the user requesting the file deletion, myself and another user, had a major dispute involving images that was unrelated to copyright and regarding their placement within articles in June which continued for days, resulting in edit warring, featured article protection and administrative intervention. After the dispute ended, it was suggested by administration that no action be taken on media uploaded by the other user and vice versa, and I'd appreciate the same from Raeky, and have our media left to the community. Targeting a user is harassment. Editor182 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should familiarize yourself with COM:DW, fair use does not apply when taking a picture of a copyrighted work, and the M logo for Monster Energy is not just simple text, it's an artwork, thus copyrightable. Taking a photograph of a copyrighted work does not infer you the right to do whatever you want with that photograph, the copyrights of what you photographed still apply. As for harassment, thats a fallacious and misguided remark, I monitor your account periodically, and when you started modifying the pictures on the articles you nearly got topic banned for, I looked at your recent activity and noticed this image. If you note I put up pictures for deletion not only your two here, and someone elses, but two more on Commons, I also changed the infobox image on Monster Energy to a fair use claimed version of their logo. Which by the way you can NOT claim fair use to use this copyrighted image on Caffeine according to our policies on fair use. — raekyT 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, the Monster "M" cannot be copyrighted, since as a recognizable letter M it constitutes part of a typeface. As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's highly stylized and not just a simple typeface. The threshold of originality I believe is clearly met here. It's always best to err on the side of cation here, and these images are not significantly contributing to any articles, a fair use claim on the logo of the company for their product(s) pages would be sufficient to illustrate the article, individual pictures of the products, and putting this product on a general page like Caffeine isn't necessary for the understanding of Caffeine. There is a threshold where letters cross from simple typography to works of art. — raekyT 20:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My account doesn't require your monitoring either, Raeky. Editor182 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monster Energy Drink.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Editor182 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• The big "M" logo for Monster Energy definitely crosses the threshold of originality therefore this is copyright infringement by derivative work. — raekyT 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an orphan file which may be deleted. Editor182 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monster Energy Can.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Alex9419 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• The big "M" logo for Monster Energy definitely crosses the threshold of originality therefore this is copyright infringement by derivative work. — raekyT 03:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an orphan file which may be deleted. Editor182 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2D Boy logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned file, superseded by File:2D Boy Logo.svg. — ξ^xplicit 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all (G7), with execution performed by Courcelles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am the original creator/uploader of these images, so this should be uncontentious. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Navy Cross Ribbon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs | uploads).
• File:Purple Heart Ribbon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs | uploads).
• File:Vietnam Service Ribbon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs | uploads).
• File:RVN Campaign Ribbon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs | uploads).
• File:RVN Gallantry Cross - Unit Ribbon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • All five images are orphans, unused since SVG versions are now available. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justin-timberlake-sexyback.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Siquisloco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• WP:NFCC#8 - image subject of critical commentary, no apparent encyclopedic value Mosmof (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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