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 debate was: - Moot - it's a commons image - Peripitus (Talk) 23:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Available Energy-3.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 69.47.185.71 ( notify | contribs).

• This image is highly problematic from an original research perspective. In particular, the association of energy with volume is essentially an unwarranted synthesis and tends to confuse the physics of the situation. The person who made the image in the first place admitted that the image is meant to serve as "advocacy" (read "propaganda") and indeed using volumes of cubes to indicate the "sizes" of energy available is something that should be subject to attribution and publication rather than creation by a Wikipedia editor. The image has also been creating problems at certain articles like solar energy where consensus was as of last year to not include the image, but it keeps getting reintroduced in defiance of this. The best thing to do in this case is delete it from Wikipedia as not applicable to any of our articles. Keeping it on commons makes sense since it was released under the proper copyright, but it should not be used in a verifiably sourced, unoriginal encyclopedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - OP has not raised any valid issues with the image. Most types of charts and graphs interpret data of any sort as area or volume, so this is far from unusual. Nobody is saying that you can put an amount of energy in a given volume, it's simply a visual representation which allows the casual reader a quick understanding of proportions involved. Second, what someone said while creating something, and what that something is and how it's used are two very different things. Please comment on the content rather than the editor. Finally, the problems of Solar energy are the problems of that article. If someone is pushing against consensus, there are several well established methods of dealing with them on Wikipedia. We don't delete stuff just because somebody thinks it's pretty in the article but you don't. NJGW ( talk) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose there may be a problem of synthasis in the data itself, they appear to combine data from two sources, making it harder to combine like with like. I don't see a problem with the representation of energy as volume. It does seem established practice to use volumes and area to depict scaler properties (The Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project's Exergy Flow Charts uses areas to represent energy.) Hence the image is an vaild interpration of the data rather than a synthasis. It would be interesting to see data which showed the energy it would be technically possible to exctract from each source. -- Salix ( talk): 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Inasmuch as the image is on Commons, this IfD is misplaced. — teb728 t c 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong support As a general rule, three dimensional figures should not be used to represent quantities because they tend to hide data. The book How to Lie with Statistics points this out and if you look at the two versions below you can see how changing the depth of the boxes skews the comparison. As to the Stanford diagram, if you look more closely you'll see the bubbles do not scale; however, I don't see a problem with using areas to compare quantities because areas don't hide any data. Secondly, the diagram uses a source that talks about EXERGY but displays the data as ENERGY - this introduces a 7 percent mismatch. Mrshaba ( talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

question are you saying the image should be fixed or deleted? NJGW ( talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I support deleting the image. Mrshaba ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The relative sizes of the values mean that 1-D and 2-D comparisons are not useful here. In 1D the solar values are 5730 times as big, with squares the side length would need to be 75 as big, with cubes its only 18 times the size hence making a visual comparision tractable. -- Salix ( talk): 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The rotation due to changing the perspective is really a moot point. Mrshaba is simply clutching at straws trying to find a way to delete an image that he/she has never liked. And for many types of energy exergy is the same as energy, though a 7 percent difference when you are trying to compare numbers that range from 15 to 86,000 is frankly ludicrous. If it was 92,000 instead of 86,000, for example, the large cube would be 18.3 times bigger instead of 17.9 times bigger, a difference of only 2.2%, and not enough of a difference to even see. The entire point of the image is to show the relative sizes of the two numbers, in a physically accurate manner. A linear or area comparison would lead the smaller to be less than a pixel (or two), and not visible. A log comparison leads to a blatant example of lying with statistics, as it makes the two numbers look comparable in size to each other. The one on the right, if anything appears to be a little more accurate than the one on the left. I count a ratio of about 40 to 3 pixels on the left and a ratio of about 35 to 2 pixels on the right. Anyone who wishes is welcome to tweak the accuracy of the images by a pixel or two, but it really seems pointless. Delphi234 ( talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - Image is replaceable with text (NFCC#1) and does not add significantly to reader's understanding (NFCC#8). I note also that "Microsoft Office" is mentioned only once in the article and NOT in reference to the image - there is no critical commentary about the image at all - Peripitus (Talk) 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Microsoft Office Word 2003 on ubuntu.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SF007 ( notify | contribs).

• yeah and its not like we can find an open-source Windows-only application that we can run instead. ViperSnake151 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: The fact that Microsoft Office runs is encyclopedic, qualifies for fair use, and is significant. Running some insignificant windows free app is not. The article itself should have major discussion about Office working under Wine, as that's the primary application Codeweavers supports and has long spurred Wine development. Scott Ritchie ( talk) 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I also think it makes sense to have the screenshot since Microsoft Office is a clear example of software not available for Linux, and that cannot be ported, since it is closed source. That's the main reason for wine: closed source windows software SF007 ( talk) 23:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The ability Microsoft office is one of the key reasons why many people need to use Wine. In fact, that is the reason why a product called Crossover Office exists. -- AM088^{( talk)} 00:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Although people may prefer to use Microsoft Office, Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content says “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” The policy prefers an “inferior” free image. Insofar as the purpose is to show that Office runs, that can be stated in text. — teb728 t c 07:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Agree with teb728 and ViperSnake151.-- O sama K 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Microsoft Office and Windows are the quintessential essences of closed software, especially with the proprietary undocumented (or poorly documented) operating system hooks Microsoft uses in Office to maintain its compatibility. Demonstrating the ability to run even the bloatware that is Office with all compatibility intact is extremely relevant to showing how well Wine can work, with even Windows' undocumented functions. - Nard 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Yes, but you said that more effectively in text than what the image show; the image shows only minimal functioning. And it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required by WP:NFCC#8. — teb728 t c 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Obviously Office is the most relevant application demonstration, since it is a world class business software. I would like to see Office 2007 since it is even more refined. jes ( talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Readers do not need to see a screenshot to understand that this program allows Office to run correctly. Quintessential example of something that can be conveyed by text alone, without images. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Some good oppose points have been raised, but they have convinced me of the reverse. I din't think a screen shot of any other program would have convey the same level of ability of Wine: Office is the gold-standard by which Wine is judged so it is appropriate to show that program. Likewise a screenshot conveys more information than simply saying "Wine can run Office". Personally I'll only believe something when I see it, and the image convey the fact that Wine can run office and it looks like office under windows. -- Salix ( talk): 22:32, 10 October 2008 (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.