Memory Alpha:Files for deletion

Template:Ifd

www.probertdesigns.com concept art

For the most part, Ottens uploaded numerous images about 3 or 4 years ago that were never properly cited. A number of these appear to be taken from Probert's website, where there is no indication that there was "explicit permission of the owner" to use these. --Alan del Beccio 19:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)

It might be worth contacting Andrew Probert and inquiring whether we can use a limited number of his images, perhaps with the understanding that we link back to his site on the image pages or something as such. Thoughts? -- Sulfur 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Contacting him is the best course of action, though aren't images three and four already permissable for our use here. I remember seeing them somewhere with the "used with permission" notice. --Nmajmani 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Likely on the image page. We have no confirmation that they were actually "used with permission". -- Sulfur 02:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The was a huge fuzz about that - all of these images were uploaded, and when some of them were put up for deletion as copyvios (by me, I think), Ottens made the claim that he had contacted Probert and got permission to use the images. I'm not sure if something like a mail "log" was ever provided, and I'm not sure if Probert knew what exactly he was agreeing to (if anything), but I do know that I asked Ottens to at least add proper disclaimers to the various uploads - which in some cases never happened. If such mail log can be found here, it should be copied to all of the individual image discussion pages - otherwise, we should ask again, but this time in a more "formal" way. :) -- Cid Highwind 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a reply by Probert had been posted here: [1]. This link is currently only accessible to admins, as it is a deleted edit of the page in question. I'm not sure why that has been deleted, so eventually this and all other deleted edits of that page could be restored. -- Cid Highwind 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletions in question were as a result of an incomplete merge. I corrected and replaced the link, so now everyone can access it. --Alan 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Misc unused images

Spring cleaning time, use 'em or lose 'em. --Alan 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP on the Corbin Bernsen image. Why in creation was a good, clear, cited, licensed used-with-permission image of the actor removed from the actor's page and replaced with an image of the character the actor played?– Watching...^listening... 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that is what we do here. Screencaps rule. He appeared as a character with no prosthetics. --Alan 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree (Delete). I don't see the use of those actor images when we have screencaps. Also "Maybe people are interested to see what they look today" is no excuse, just do a google image search or check the wikipedia article. --Jörg 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I have no chance in hell of winning on this. But I will say it anyway. The page is about the actor, not the character. Therefore an image of the actor, out of costume and character should be on the page, not the actor's character. This has nothing to do with "what they look look like now." And since when did this sudden insistence on screencaps over actor images start? MA has a plethora of actor images on actor pages that have been here for years. I have seen no policy guidelines on this. This sounds to me like a personal preference, which is not fair.– Watching...^listening... 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Bernsen image - I agree with Eyes Only. Why NOT use a nice image we have of the actor? Sure, when we don't have a good image, use a screenshot. But having one certainly improves the article in my opinion. Jorg, with respect, your argument is pretty weak. If we followed that logic, we wouldn't have actor pages at all: people could just go onto wikipedia or IMDB. But we do, so what's the harm of having a real-life image? – Cleanse ^talk 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. We have a clear, visual reference of "the actor" in the screencap, who is not hidden behind prosthetics, hoods, makeup, whaterver. And what your argument is the opposite of what keeps image content from getting out of hand, "when we don't have a good screenshot, use an image". --Alan 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really scared of MA being flooded by...images of the subjects of its articles. A few (and it'll only be a few) more images is NOT going to break the wiki.

Some people obviously appreciate images of the actor outside of their Trek appearance, making them not redundant.– Cleanse 06:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Mr Watching and Mr Cleanse 100%. The article is not about Q2, it's about Corbin Bernsen, so why not have a picture of Corbin Bernsen on it. I don't understand the problem with having an up to date image of the actor on the actor's page. Seems like a no-brainer to me. – Bertaut ^talk 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, we are not Wikipedia. I have no issue whatsoever with such images when we've only seen the actor behind prosthetics. I don't see the point in an updated image when the person was seen on screen in their "normal" guise. I mean, heck, if we're doing this, we should find a picture of James Doohan's ashes, since that's the most updated image of them available. -- Sulfur 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Sulphur, we should have an image of James Doohan's ashes. --Bp 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gees, thanks for ignoring our arguments. None of us EVER said that we NEED a pic "as they look now". This was already stressed in Eyes Only's second post. But hey, if we've got a recent image, by all means let's use it. Please explain how properly cited, licensed images of an article's subject hurt the wiki. Really.

Responding to your strawman: we do have several images of James Doohan, including one close to his death. According to you guys, this should be deleted and replaced with Scotty pics. But believe it or not, the article it's in isn't about Scotty, it's about James Doohan. As I cannot stress enough, the article is about the actor, not his character.

The whole "we're not wikipedia" argument is silly here because BOTH MA and WP cover actors. So, according to you guys, the text can be like WP (plus Trek connections), but images can't. That's rather choosy application of the rule. Or we can take the rule as it is IMHO intended to apply: to ensure in-universe articles aren't overloaded with non-canon real world material more suited to wikipedia.

And for the last time, if we have a good image, let's use it.– Cleanse 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"We're not Wikipedia." That is not the point. I am going to repeat myself here. The point is that you have an article about an actor who appeared in Star Trek as whatever character. Therefore, for the sake of completeness and propriety, the article should carry an image of the actor, outside of character. As Seven of Nine would say, the fact that the actor was not in prosthetics is irrelevant. The article is about the actor, not the character the actor played.– Watching...^listening... 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page images

These two pics Image:Markrolston-possibly1.jpg and Image:Markrolston-possibly2.jpg were uploaded for a talk page discussion here. They are no longer needed and should be deleted. – Tom 12:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the discussion will still make sense without the pics (though a note should be added stating that screenshots were removed)– Cleanse 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Uxali technician woman.jpg

Unused duplicate of Image:Uxali Technician 2.jpg.

Delete. – Tom 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - but can't you just summarily delete duplicate images, as an admin? – Cleanse 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:USSDefiantNCC1764Bridge.JPG

Publicity still, not screencap, and not needed as similar image already on file...Capt Christopher Donovan 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Not a publicity still, a behind-the-scenes image of the set, provided by Mike Sussman. Such images are a valuable background resource. -- Michael Warren | Talk 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. We have a valuable resource in Mike Sussman, let's not squander or alienate him. This is a valid background usable image. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular pic I took myself on the set. I see that it's already been replaced in the two articles I added it to. Did I in my ignorance violate MA policy? --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What I think the issue there is, Mike, is that you added it into articles as an in-universe image of the Defiant bridge, rather than a background image of the set. It should really have gone in the "Background Information" section of the articles. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did add another image of the set showing it in context of the soundstage and added that pic to the "Production" section of the "In a Mirror, Darkly" article. But it's an interesting discussion, I think, what comprises an "in-universe" image and what doesn't. I suppose any image caught by Paramount's film/digital cameras is therefore official and in-universe, and as this was my personal camera, that doesn't apply. Of course I was in the employ of the show when I took the photo, so perhaps that's different from a fan walking by and stealing a few snapshots. Whatever you guys decide if fine by me. FWIW, other "background" snapshots of mine have been in various MA articles for some time -- the NX-01 dedication plaque as well as the Defiant's plaque. I also took some close-up shots of various consoles on the Defiant bridge, one of which I recently added to the Astrogator article. I thought since I had unique access to these sets, you guys might appreciate a closer look. --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely. --From Andoria with Love 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. -- Renegade54 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I'm sorry, but really...can we think of any other ways to encourage the production staff not to provide their invaluable contributions to this site? --Alan 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)