Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 January 14

:Uploaded by Helpfulimageposter ([{{fullurl:User talk:Helpfulimageposter|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). I uploaded this image but now have decided there is no good use for it — Helpfulimageposter 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted per user uploader request. --BigDT 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Toytoy ([{{fullurl:User talk:Toytoy|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). May be illicit child pornography, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173#Underage images posted to Erection: "...it is unlawful to posess a naked and sexually explicit picture of a person under 18 years of age." Nominated on December 26 by User:Yazov, who didn't post the nomination here. — tyomitch 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I am unsure of how in any way this image would be considered "sexually explicit". The image is used in two appropirate places. I do not think the above linked discussion is at all comparable to this image. A quick question to User:Tyomitch, is this a procedural nomination or a support of deletion.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:: It is not a support of deletion, but rather bringing attention to a touchy subject. I know none of this legal matter myself, so I abstain. --tyomitch 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (quickly) - This Image is highly offensive and may put users off visiting Wikipedia incase they think Wikipedia is some sort of bad website. People will get a big shock when they see this on articles and is not suitable for articles generally, it could be used on wikipedia if all private areas were blanked out using photoshop or another program. Tellyaddict 16:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Gay Cdn. GreyCat 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Gay Cdn. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Gay Cdn. -- Jeff G. 11:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not Deleted --BigDT 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Candlewicke ([{{fullurl:User talk:Candlewicke|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Removed from article :Titanic (1997 film). Low quality screenshot of minor character. No source. No fair use rationale. Nv8200p talk 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possible delete - Image is very unclear and would need some major work on it or would probably need to be deleted. Tellyaddict

• Delete - This is a high-res photo of a dirty television screen (complete with a reflection of the unnecessary flash) displaying a low-res standard television image of a single frame from :Titanic (1997 film), which was identified by Candlewicke as "Searching for life." It was added to the article in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_%281997_film%29&diff=96654879&oldid=96566424 by Candlewicke and deleted in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_%281997_film%29&diff=next&oldid=100216049 by Nv8200p. It is no longer referenced anywhere but here. I suggest that Candlewicke clean its television screen and stop photographing its television screen with any flash that is reflected in a resulting photograph. -- Jeff G. 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Chuckicks ([{{fullurl:User talk:Chuckicks|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). "Used by permission", but no specific permission specified. Conflicting tags, Absentee uploader Nv8200p talk 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - relisted from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 3 - image is in use and page was not tagged with {{tl|ifdc}} --BigDT 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Comradeqsp ([{{fullurl:User talk:Comradeqsp|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possible delete - This Image is really unclear and an image with the persons full head would be better and clearer and more suitable for a Wiki article.

:Uploaded by Candlewicke ([{{fullurl:User talk:Candlewicke|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Low quality screenshot. Obsolete by :Image:Dicaprio winslet titanic.jpg in article Titanic (1997 film) Nv8200p talk 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Comradeqsp ([{{fullurl:User talk:Comradeqsp|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Sanal g ([{{fullurl:User talk:Sanal g|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Doesn't appear to be selfcreated. Not used anywhere. Uploader absent. Fred-Chess 02:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Vacuousabyss ([{{fullurl:User talk:Vacuousabyss|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). orphaned image, sole contribution of user, personal photo Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Mrmullet ([{{fullurl:User talk:Mrmullet|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Fcbayern55 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Fcbayern55|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Unencyclopedic. Vanity; the only page using this image has been deleted. — Carson 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relisting nomination from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 5 where the uploader was not notified. --BigDT 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Houdini8749 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Houdini8749|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OB :Image:CU AF Insignia1961.svg, of questionable licensing, only used on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve BigDT 03:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Senix ([{{fullurl:User talk:Senix|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). This image is not used and is very similar to :Image:Amestris Military Government.gif —Remember the dot (t) 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Ejensen1 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Ejensen1|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). This image, even though it is licensed under the GFDL, is a picture of box art and would therefore fall under fair use. Since it is not used in any articles and its claim of GFDL licensing is questionable, this image should be deleted. —Remember the dot (t)

:Uploaded by Irongargoyle ([{{fullurl:User talk:Irongargoyle|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, OB: :Image:3deadmal2.jpg - obsoleted by :Image:Deadmalls dot com screenshot.jpg. — SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Gethomas3 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Gethomas3|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Unnecessary unfree image. Used only for casual illustration in 1966_FIFA_World_Cup — Superm401 - Talk 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know about unnecessary — several World Cup articles detail the selection of that year's mascot, and an image of the subject at hand is an important illustrative part of that. No comment on whether it is free, fair use, or something else (I'm not familiar enough with copyright tags to know what it falls under), but I would prefer to keep this image if at all possible. Tijuana Brass 10:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by David.Monniaux ([{{fullurl:User talk:David.Monniaux|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Used under fair use but no rationale provided, Image uploaded prior to May 4, 2006 so not elgible for CSD I6 MECU≈talk 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::Relisting because there is now a rationale. Superm401 - Talk 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not deleted as there is now a rationale without prejudice as to a potential future nomination based on WP:FAIR criteria #1 or #8 --BigDT 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Gerardgarcia ([{{fullurl:User talk:Gerardgarcia|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Unencyclopedic personal photo, orphaned. — Flyingtoaster1337 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by PAR ([{{fullurl:User talk:PAR|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Violation of WP:FUC criterions 1, 2, 3, 8 and WP:IUP#Photo_montages. See Talk:Standard test image. — Oden 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The same applies for:

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break}}

• :Image:Boats24.png
• :Image:Goldhill24.png
• :Image:Mouse.png
• :Image:Zelda24.png
• :Image:Barbara24.png
• :Image:Masuda2.png
• :Image:Masuda1.png

{{col-break}}

• :Image:Sailboat24.png
• :Image:House24.png
• :Image:Peppers2.png
• :Image:Peppers.png
• :Image:Tiffany24.png
• :Image:Baboon24.png

{{col-end}}

class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Expand this area to see the discussion
KEEP - Violations of WP:FUC 1,2,3 and 8 have been suggested as reasons for eliminating these images. All are invalid: WP:FUC #1 - No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information... :These images are absolutely not in violation of this criterion. As a matter of fact, there is no way that any image could violate this criterion less! These images, when reconstructed, consist of a string of binary digits, not one of which can be changed without destroying its status as a standard test image. This may be difficult to understand - when this image is downloaded, it is not a digitized version of a test image, it is the test image. The sequence of binary digits that compose the image are the same sequence of binary digits that were used by various researchers in their image processing studies and then reported in the image processing literature. WP:FUC #2 - The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media... :not in violation These images are digitized, reduced in size scans of copyrighted or formerly copyrighted materials. They in no way compete with the original. It is important to realize that it is not the subject matter which is important, it is the variations in shading, fine detail, and sharp edges that are important. In other words another scan of the same person or animal or scene may not include these important image-processing details. Furthermore, these images are used in image processing literature. In order to compare one's own results to that of the literature requires precisely the same digital image. Also, these images are freely availiable from any number of standard test image repositories. WP:FUC #3 - The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. :Again, not in violation - one will not serve the purpose adequately. These images are not interchangeable - if one is used in the literature, then another one cannot be tested and compared to it. There are no high or low resolution versions. Each image is unique down to the last binary digit. WP:FUC #8 - The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. : Again, not in violation. The subject of the article is "standard test images". These are standard test images. Not reproductions, not thumbnails, these are the very images that are used in the literature, bit by digital bit. The images could not be less in violation of this criterion! These images are not a photo montage any more than a mathematical equation is a "math symbol montage". In light of the above discussion, this objection is invalid as well. PAR 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ::* Criterion 1 & 2, 8: this statement is self-contradictory; the images are a "string of binary digits" which cannot be replaced, yet they have been reduced in resolution in order to avoid displacing any market role for the original media. Also, the possibility that a image could be produced in the future and released under a free license cannot be ruled out. ::* Criterion 3 & 8: the article text on Standard test image is a stub and does not support the use of any single fair use image at the present time, much less a gallery (compare with the article Lenna). ::* Photo montage: a math expression cannot be copyrighted, so the comparison is invalid. Also photo montages relates to the use of the images in the article, not the images themselves.--Oden 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Keep: I have taken several signal processing classes (including a graduate level digital image processing (DIP) class) and I recognize many of these images. They are unique, specific images used throughout DIP classes, literature, books, and journal articles. It is their ubiquity that makes that unreplaceable. From a technical standpoint, one image is not replaceable for another. While reduced for wikipedia, the images are known throughout the field and I have seen them used to compare different algorithms to previously published algorithms. (Heck, I have implemented algorithms and used these exact images to draw comparisons myself!) It is impossible to replace these images with fair use images because any other image renders the comparison moot (they must be bit-for-bit equal for any conherent/sane comparison to be made) and this is why they are ubiquitous. I have no desire to make cheap shots or demean another wikipedian, but Oden's — for a lack of a better word — "crusade" against these images and his refusal to see there is no free replacement indicates to me his lack of knowledge of the image processing field. I would, however, add that Oden removed these images from standard test image and did not mention that here per the instructions for IFD. I will say that I would like to see the article expanded with one image per section and each section explaining what makes its respective image a standard image. What features of the image make it desirable over others. Where has it been used and by whom (IOW: references). Etc. However, this can't be done when attention must be paid to a deletion process. Also the cicada image is missing from the list of standard images. :) Cburnett 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Keep: Before you first touched it on 12 January, the article Standard test image (including images) was self-explanatory. What, exactly, about those images is not fair use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffGent (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2

}}| {{{2}}}|}}.

• Keep, per RAR. Thousands of companies (from Fortune-100 to small shops) routinely use this collection of images in their work and publish it in hundreds of thousands of publications. I also believe there were arrangments with the copyright owners over releasing the images into public domain. At any case it is clearily an exfeptional case. Alex Bakharev 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The images are the subject of the article, and freely and widely distributed; they need to be identified to be talked about or mentioned; this if fair use. They are already substially reduced versions of any possibly copyrighted originals, but they are used as themselves, not as representations of or alternatives to those originals. There is no chance that their use here will interfere with any sales or other proprietary interest in the originals. Dicklyon 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:* Regarding the use of the template {{tl|ifd}}, there is no requirement to notify anyone else but the uploader (instructions).

:* The images were removed from the article per WP:FUC since they fail the fair use criteria and were used in a manner which is not permitted by WP:IUP.

:* The deletion process is no excuse for abstaining from improving an article. The argument could even be made that deleting the images makes room for more text as well as free images. The article has roughly the same amount of text since it was first created ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_test_image&oldid=25789432 first edit]). It is a stub with fourteen (14) fair use images. We usually don't allow one...

:* Regarding the use of images in a specific article, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used for reference and not a textbook on any subject. These images may be ubiquitous in another context, but here they are not.

:*Last of all, this is not a straw poll. Voting is evil! :-) --Oden 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

::A suggestion: A standard test image could be created (by a [http://www.ece.rice.edu/~wakin/images/ university department] for instance) and released under a free license. All we need is one, to illustrate the article. --Oden 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:::You still don't get it, do you? Someone just can't "make another painting" and call it a Picasso. Cburnett 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:Keep: I feel that these should either be reduced in resolution by a small amount or slightly cropped or something like that in order to deliberately prevent anyone from using these in place of the original test images. If we provide perfect full resolution versions of all of them, then we are at definite risk of removing commercial value from the original owners. If, however, we change the images in some small-but-not-reversible way then they would become utterly useless as actual test images - but still retain plenty of their original character in order that we may discuss them properly. Another issue here is that the group who made these test images in the first place lived in an age before copyright infringement was very much enforced or worried about. The classic Lenna image was simply scanned from a Playboy magazine - and the sources of the other images may by now have been quite forgotten. So I think cropping the images by (say) 1% would suffice to make it very clear that we intend no commercial violation - yet not in any way impair our ability to describe the images. It would be quite utterly essential that we make it clear that we did this and that we are not a repository of these images in order that some unsuspecting person doesn't try to actually use the images as downloaded from here as actual standard test images. SteveBaker 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

::I think it was PAR's intent that the images as downloaded from here COULD be usable as actual standard test images. I fully support that intent. I think that it is important for the scientific community to have these images available in as many places as possible, and that each one is notable for its use as a standard test image. -- Jeff G. 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes - I understand that, and I'd also like to see the full image set here. But my concern is that if the copyright holder ever wished to sell these images (you can already buy them on CD-ROM from the owner - so that's not at all unreasonable) then the presence of the full image suite here on Wikipedia could most definitely be construed to be impinging on the commercial value of the images to the owner. That would immediately disqualify our right to use them under 'fair use'. Since I'd prefer to have solid grounds for fair use of reduced resolution images than to act as a "mirror/repository" for the full resolution versions (which I believe is also explicitly one of the things Wikipedia is not). Faced with such a choice - I therefore suggest keeping only reduced resolution or otherwise "damaged" versions. Having said that, it has to be mentioned that these images have been circulated and given away for free online (even by the owners) for many, many years without any kind of statement of license, ownership, usage restrictions or copyrights - and in many cases, the current "owners" may have violated other people's copyrights to obtain the images in the first place. Such was definitely the case with the Lenna test image for example. These are muddy waters. SteveBaker 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Solution seems obvious to me: reduced images for copyrighted stuff (on en:), full images for copylefted stuff (on commons:). Cburnett 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also note to anyone interested that after being unblocked, User:Oden tagged each image as candidate for speedy delete in full knowledge that he himself put them up for IFD. All were removed by User:Feydey. I honestly have never heard of anyone nominating images, then getting zero support, and then put them up for speedy deletion. I'm trying to assume good faith on his part, but I don't think that's fair to the whole process. Cburnett 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:Each day, it gets harder and harder to assume good faith on the part of User:Oden. -- Jeff G. 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::On that note, Oden has proclaimed retirement from WP (over this whole issue, I'm sure). Cburnett 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:::That proclamation has now been rescinded, less than three days later (its retirement lasted from 13:31 on the 15th to 12:25 on the 18th (UTC)) - please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOden&diff=101543724&oldid=101346421 for details and User talk:Oden/Archive_3 for the discussion User:Oden had User:Werdnabot archive aggressively. -- Jeff G. 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Oh, I see what was going on, the retirement has now (as of 21:51 UTC) moved from the redirected User talk page User talk:Oden to the real User page User:Oden. -- Jeff G. 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

|}

• Not deleted - There is a consensus view that these images do not violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. --BigDT 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Glen Conway ([{{fullurl:User talk:Glen Conway|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, UE- — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Glen Conway ([{{fullurl:User talk:Glen Conway|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, UE- — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Davidlloydrocks ([{{fullurl:User talk:Davidlloydrocks|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, UE, NEW, possible attack image MECU≈talk 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Shakirashakira92 ([{{fullurl:User talk:Shakirashakira92|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). UE, LQ, low and poor quality makes it UE MECU≈talk 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Djfreshie ([{{fullurl:User talk:Djfreshie|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, UE, first contrib by new user MECU≈talk 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by MADREX2001 ([{{fullurl:User talk:MADREX2001|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). OR, UE, usd in CSD article MECU≈talk 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Factually inaccurate. Uploader has been notified; image is factually inaccurate and shouldn't be on WP is no one is going to fix it. → JARED ^(t)  19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this image is actually at Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Please see :Commons:Commons:Deletion requests if you would like to request its deletion there. Thank you. --BigDT 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not deleted - image is on commons --BigDT 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Claim is made that it is for fair use. But, not being used for Comment/Criticism of the artwork, or for parody of the artwork. Atom 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment − I believe the image should be kept, though religious views on masturbation does not provide "critical commentary". Perhaps implementing the image into Onan with valid critique(s) would support this cause. − Twas Now 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::*That needs to happen, and the image has to be the subject of criticism as well, in order for there to be a valid claim of fair use. --Ssbohio 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'd love to see the image stay. I think it's great art with an emotional power. However, the fact that I like it doesn't eliminate the fair use problem. The fact that I think the current interpretation of fair use is unnecessarily restrictive is, likewise, not relevant. The only thing that matters is that this image is not being used in a manner consistent with fair use policy. Because of that, deleteion is warranted, unless the image's use is improved to comply with fair use. --Ssbohio 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Mtbrocket ([{{fullurl:User talk:Mtbrocket|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Reasons: AB, LQ, OB This picture was in the article Fraser Island but I replaced it with a much better picture from commons. The picture is very low quality and now obsolete for any article. Bobo is soft 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - relisting nomination from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 6 - uploader was not notified. --BigDT 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted, but the image is on Commons by the same name. The Commons image is now showing through. --BigDT 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Bookish ([{{fullurl:User talk:Bookish|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Violates the WP:NOR policy (see talk page) — Ubarfay 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am relisting this image from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 6 without prejudice. Notification was not given and it is in wide use. --BigDT 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• One other comment - I have no particular preference whether the image is kept or not, but if it is, we can ask Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve to produce an SVG version of it. --BigDT 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The image is useful and percentages are only slightly out. This is probably as a result of rounding up. However the image does need to be improved so that the percentages are exactly correct. Nicolharper 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am of the opinion that the pie should be retained. I'm not sure it violates the WP:NOR policy- a verifiable source should be possible to find if we look hard enough. However, unless we find a good source that can verify the exact percentages, the numbers should probably be removed so the pie just gives an overall idea. And yes, I think this badly needs an SVG convert. --ram_einstein 13:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The percentages are the issue in dispute. Other Reliable Sources put Christianity at no more than 22% of the adult world population, meaning <15% of the total population. The French version of the Religion page gives numbers and therefore proportions statistically significantly different than the English page. This graphic violates the WP:NOR policy criterion:

{{Quotation|

"[...]synthesis of established [...] opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

}}

::Granted, the act of synthesis is merely applying a spreadsheet graphing function on data from a source accepted as reliable. But, that source is not here attributed. And, to repeat, this same WP:NOR policy has been used to remove tabulations of data available from other sources that yield a dramatically different profile of world religiosity and Christianity. The WP:RS guideline requires neutrality on matters of religion. Either we allow graphical visualizations of multiple reliable sources, or we allow none. To permit only one source to be visualized is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. --Ubarfay 08:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not deleted - no consensus to delete. I would suggest, though, as a possible compromise, that it may be worthwhile to simply update the image. A mutually agreeable source like the world almanac or something could be used to obtain up-to-date percentages and then a request can be made to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve to create an image in the likeness of this one with the current/correct percentages. --BigDT 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Dudesleeper ([{{fullurl:User talk:Dudesleeper|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Unencyclopedic. — Computerjoe's talk 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Uploaded by Grandswiss ([{{fullurl:User talk:Grandswiss|action=edit}} notify] | contribs). Obsolete: superseded by vector :Image:Motherboards form factors.svg

• Deleted, but the image is on Commons as the same name. The Commons image now shows through. --BigDT 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)