Memory Alpha:Files for deletion

Template:Ifd

Image:Jupiter-station-insignia.JPG

Image:Jupiter-station-insignia.JPG

Poor quality image and I'm pretty sure it's taken from the Star Trek Sticker Book. Deevolution 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete or replace with a screencap of the symbol if possible . -- Captain M.K.B. 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Replace then delete. AJ Halliwell 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:VulcanCapital2.jpg

Image:VulcanCapital2.jpg

There are two images of the Vulcan capital city where, I think, one would suffice. The other one is Image:VulcanCapital.jpg. Of those two, I decided to bring this one up for deletion, because it is of lesser quality and at the moment only used on Vulcan (planet) (where a dozen images are too much already). I don't care about the exact image used. If this shot is considered better than the other, it can be uploaded using the other filename. -- Cid Highwind 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral.Are we sure they're the same city? I don't remember the one from "Home" being identified as the capital, it was just an establishing shot for T'Les's house. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Rename. Shows "residential" Vulcan, which we haven't seen elsewhere. - AJ Halliwell 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as we never found out if T'Les lives in the capital or not, and besides, what's the problem with having both images? Now that TOS Vulcan is changed in the remastered episodes, why not keep the images to compare? And if you want one of them in a larger size, tell me and I'll upload a larger version. --Jörg 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... If we can't even be sure that both images show the capital city, more reason to delete one of them. An image not showing the Vulcan capital shouldn't have a filename "VulcanCapital*.jpg" ;) -- Cid Highwind 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then it should be re-uploaded as "Vulcan at dawn.jpg" or something similar. Seriously, I don't see why we have to loose one of the images. They are quite different and distinct. --Jörg 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the whole story ist this:

1. I checked the article Vulcan, and found a bunch of images in an ugly sidebar table, also too much for the amount of text in the article.
2. Two of those images were apparently showing the Vulcan capital city. One of them also in use on another page, the other one just this page.
3. So, while rearranging images on the page, I decided to remove what I thought was a duplicate, and bring the then-orphaned image up for deletion.

In the end, if the second image is not the Vulcan capital, and we have a place to put that image, of course it can be uploaded again. However, I think that the article "Vulcan" can not be this place, because I already had to temporarily move 9-10 images to a gallery at the end of the article since they had no real place in the article. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On that note, some of those images really don't need to be there. Earth doesn't have an image of every landmark and city we've seen on it, why should Vulcan? Most of them have articles of their own, linked to in the article. - AJ Halliwell 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

image duplicates

Image:StarfleetAcademyLogo.jpg is an inferior duplicate of Image:Starfleet Academy logo 2372.png - Deevolution 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both Starfleet Academy logos and get Shisma's much better one from MA/de. ;)

• Delete the inferior academy logo. -- Sulfur 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kwan.jpg is an official episode photo, essentially the same as Image:Daniel Kwan.jpg, but since this was a minor character, is seems unnecessary to have both of these. Deevolution 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both Kwans, one is the mugshot used in the Daniel Kwan article, one is the more dramaitic episode image for "Eye of the Beholder". This was already decided once before. --<unsigned>

• Delete "StarfleetAcademyLogo". Keep the first Kwan, replace the second one cause it's kind of low quality and a publicity photo. - AJ Halliwell 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a general reminder to all, as I have noticed one or the other requirements for items posted here have not been fulfilled: Please remember to orphan images that are being considered for deletion, and as well, add a the {{deletionimage}} template to the image. --Alan del Beccio 08:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Romulanhand.jpg

Image:Romulanhand.jpg

Personal use image. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Although, I suppose it could be used for the thaloron device... - AJ Halliwell 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename - we have no images of this device based on some simple searches of topics and images. --Alan del Beccio 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely needs to be renamed, the focus is not the hand, but the device itself. The image is of good quality, it just needs to be renamed and used in a section.-Randomname 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CaptainApril2.jpg

Image:CaptainApril2.jpg

This image never appeared on-screen and is a possible copyright violation given that it comes from the Star Trek Chronology or some other copyrighted source. --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall exactly where it came from. I know there's a black and white photo in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, but, this colourized photo (which is actually that of Gene Roddenberry) should be all right. Besides, it better shows what Robert April would have looked like in live-action, rather than the TAS cartoon image. Furthermore, it's use in the article Star Trek is... better articulates the article than the TAS image would. Kyle C. Haight 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't solve the core issues, which are that it was never seen on screen (and is therefore non-canon), and does not have a source and is a suspected copyvio. I'm not voting for a delete yet, but if these issues are not solved, I will. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Klingon weapon Photos

They all come from http://www.klingonimperialweaponsguild.org

The site has this Notice at the bottom:

"This page is for personal, recreational and non profit use. *Klingon* is a copyright item and the property of Paramount Studios and the Estate of Gene Roddenberry. No infringement on those rights are intended.

The Klingon Imperial Weapons Guild is an original concept of Ambassador Lady K'Zin (Capucine Plourde) and K'Daq Kasara (Richard Robin). Copyright 1997 - 2005.

The "Forge at the *Heart of Kri'stak*" and *mupwI'* are original ideas of K'Daq (Richard Robin). Copyright 1997 - 2005.

All knife images and articles are the property of K'Daq (Richard Robin) , K'Beck (Tim Coy) and the KIWG (unless otherwise indicated) and may not be used without permission." - <unsigned with a probe>

Well, if we want to keep them, then we could ask those people for permission. do we want to keep them? --Bp 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I am personally a fan of doing just screencaps, but many of these do not have a good screencap possibility. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If we NEED a shot of one of these, then get permission, but screenies are preferred. --6/6 _{Neural Transceiver} 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody asked permission to use these images or at least tried to look for actual screencaps? It's been over two months; we need to do something with these. --From Andoria with Love 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from copyvio page, can we get these replaced with the best caps we can find and delete these? --Alan 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The images can be used on MemoryAlpha regardless of conditions set forth on the website as MemoryAlpha claims fair use (which "is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work" -Wikipedia) I guess a tag needs to be created though... MatthewFenton 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere, "fair use" is not blanket permission to use any and all copyrighted material. We do not feel that this falls under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As well, screen caps would much be preferred, as well as some confirmation as to indicate proof of their existence. --Alan 00:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Original.JPG

Per the following from startrek.com's terms of use:

3. STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. This Web Site and all of the content it contains, or may in the future contain, including, but not limited to, articles, opinions, other text, directories, guides, photographs, illustrations, images, video and audio clips and advertising copy, as well as the trademarks, logos, domain names, trade names, service marks and any and all copyrightable material (including source and object code) and/or any other form of intellectual property (collectively, the "Material") are owned by Company other third parties, and are protected from unauthorized use, copying and dissemination by copyright, trademark, publicity and other laws and by international treaties. Nothing contained in these Terms or on the Web Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, any license or right to use any Material in any manner without the prior written consent of Company or such third party that may own the Material or intellectual property displayed on the Web Site. UNAUTHORIZED USE, COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING, POSTING, TRANSMITTING, DISTRIBUTING OR DUPLICATING OR ANY OTHER MISUSE OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED. As a user of the Web Site, you agree not to use the Material for any unlawful purposes and not to violate Company's rights or the rights of others. Company may add, change, discontinue, remove or suspend any of the Material at any time, without notice and without liability.

• Delete (obviously this would have to be replaced considering how much use it is getting) --Alan 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• By that wording, it actually strikes me as a copyright vio. -- Sulfur 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION the Star Trek.com boilerplate REFERS TO "unauthorized use" being prohibited. Isn't any use falling under "fair use" by definition authorized use?Capt Christopher Donovan 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" does not have to be authorized. Their is a difference between authorized, the consent of a party for a second party to do something, and fair use. Fair use, to me anyway, is where the second party claims the first party has no right to do anything against the second party with or without the first parties authorization for the second party to act. To clarify "fair use" is not by definition authorized. -Randomname 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I say delete. The wording is clear, to use anything off their site without written consent is prohibited. Either some one needs to get written consent, or they need to delete the picture and get a screen shot. -Randomname 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Husnockship.jpg

Despite the hint on the Husnock talk page, this image was added to the Husnock page, interestingly instead of the Husnock warship page, when evidently, the ship is in no way associated with either, and is actually, this ship, which already has a full plate when it comes to images. --Alan 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE I cite this script instruction from the episode script (found at Star Trek Minutiae):

27 INCLUDE MAIN VIEWER (OPTICAL)

We see the gleaming hull of an immense and deadly-looking spaceship approaching Rana IV. We don't need to be told it's the ship that attacked the planet only weeks ago.

Latter on, Picard states that everything they have been shown is a "recreation".

With TWO points of evidence that the depicted ship is a Husnock ship, and NOTHING in opposition to that fact, I find there is sufficient evidence that the ship is a recreation (at least visually) of the Husnack warship.Capt Christopher Donovan 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN, I suggest reading talk:Delta Rana warship (where there are already 3 similar images already contained within the article) and talk:Husnock warship, both discussions indicate otherwise. --Alan 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE read both discussions, and they are full of speculation about what the Douwd may or may not have done, but NOTHING in that discussion goes to show that the APPEARANCE of the ship is not that of a Husnock warship. On the other hand, we have the stated script intention that it IS the same type of ship (at least appearance wise), AND we have Picards "recreation" dialogue. I'll take those two real data points over any number of Talk pages of speculation.Capt Christopher Donovan 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nenebek.jpg

low quality duplicate of Image:Nenebek_shuttlebay.jpg, though the former is better named. Deevolution 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a general reminder to all, as I have noticed one or the other requirements for items posted here have not been fulfilled: Please remember to orphan images that are being considered for deletion, and as well, add a the {{deletionimage}} template to the image. --Alan 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomographic imaging scans

Three nearly identical images (one I just uploaded).

• Image:Tomographic imaging scan.jpg
• Image:Tachyon pulse convergence.JPG
• Image:Anti-time distortion graphic.jpg

Only one can stay... you decide. (Personally, I think it's between 1 and 3, as they are clearer than 2, but which is the clearest and most illustrative of all?) -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

i say delete the second and third images, the first is the best named and best quality - if a bit large. Deevolution 05:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Generationssail.jpg

i think this is a production photograph, i don't recall there ever being such a wide shot of the ship in the film, also there is a perfectly suitable duplicate, Image:Hmsentholo.jpg, which is higher quality. Deevolution 05:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tree2.jpg

I don't think we need this image. In the article Tree is a good picture that shows a tree and this image is very small and shows not really a tree. – Tom 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:USAFbadge.jpg

While once this image was on some page somewhere, it got bumped to talk page, and at this moment, is really not serving any useful purpose. --Alan 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)