Talk:Delta Center

message: Good grief, is the company that evil? Do we need that picture up there? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the photo has a credibility problem. The uploader says it was taken by cameraphone, but the metadata says it was a full digital camera. I don't know many camera phones that have this resolution. I strongly suspect it's a copyright violation uploaded from a political blog or something similar. Something like this. Could whoever wants such a photo kindly take and upload it with an accurate description? Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Energyslut?

message: I think we should removed this photo from the article. There's enough about the name change, the photo seems like overkill. Thoughts? — Zaui (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since I went to the work of tracking down the copyright holder to ask for permission to use it there, I feel that would be a waste only to remove it just because it seems like "overkill".  Simply saying something else would easily balance it out, and surely there's got to be more to say about a building that so many people have been in and that has stood there for so long. Reswobslc 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I love the photo. I would say to absolutely keep it except for one thing: the licensing.  Wikipedia does not allow permission-on-wikipedia-only photos.  This seems to be such an image.  It's also tagged for fair use, but the rationale for this image being fair use is very weak. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed to me that if that's true and they knew they needed to say something other than permission-on-wikipedia-only, that they'd be willing to say whatever needed to be said.  They didn't seem to be trying to say "go ahead and use it on Wikipedia, but we expressly reserve all other rights".  I didn't expressly grill them for that, because I didn't think anyone would be in a hurry to take it down.  It seemed to me that their only insistence was to give appropriate credit where due, which Wikipedia supports on the image page. Reswobslc 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the bold text at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images.  Again, I also think the fair use rationale is weak, so it should eventually be deleted if the license is not improved. See if they would be willing to license it under the newest creative commons attribution license. This license allows free use of the image, but requires that all future users give attribution of its source.  The tag is Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5. Thanks and good luck! Cool Hand Luke 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday's Voyeur photo?

message: I have a photo showing damage to the DC when the tornado blew through - see :Image:TORN3dcenter.jpg. Is is worth adding? The article is a bit photo-heavy now, but if the Saturday's Voyeur photo is removed, there may be room for this one.  — Zaui (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado damage photo? 

message: I'm noticing some events in the  Notable Events section aren't very notable, such as the U2 concert.  If we listed every sold out concert the list would pages and pages long... why is U2 so notable?  Thoughts? DaRkAgE7 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability