Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/12

11 November 2024

13 November 2024

Deletion requests on 12 November 2024

November 12

Files uploaded by PistonsFan2223 (talk · contribs)

No source of photographs, likely not taken by uploader. Uploader clearly took information from my uploads of the politicians who participated in the event (as indicated by my use of {{Creator}}) as well as it being clear photography instead of a video screenshot. Dave Sunday's photograph also used in this article where it is listed as a "file photo", and since a video license wouldn't cover a website or photograph copyright, it is likely a copyrighted photograph.

reppop^talk 06:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the use of the {{Creator}} template, File:Tim Defoor 2024-04-04.jpg is placed in Category:Screenshots by Reppop, which basically shows that they copied the information from my uploaded files and pasted them with images taken from somewhere else. reppop^talk 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader explained that they screengrabbed it and used the same info, although the video has a graphic on the entire video. Dan Meuser doesn't have a speaking role in the video either. reppop^talk 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skynet 0.jpg

unused, potentially misleadind desc., some XMAS joke ? Mykhal (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a satellite dish[1] [2] (edit: with its receiver pointed upwards [3]), probably from one of the many internet providers called "Skynet"[4] [5] [6] [7]. . Nakonana (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In which case, it's useful and should be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you are using wrong terms, no exteral image linked show "satellite" dish. Discussion was opened by the image itself with the uploader author (with the hypothesis on Kyrgyzstan provider). —Mykhal (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deletion reason? If there's a problem with the description, edit it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the reason (one subreason cleared; removed speculation based on upload date; used different separator). (In case of still seeing some problems, please specify). —Mykhal (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous description is not a deletion reason. Fix the description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my terminology is incorrect, then please fix it (I'm no expert on the subject matter; I just saw the signal wave symbol that is imprinted on the dish and draw conclusions from that). This looks like the "receiver" (?) bit of a satellite dish with the satellite dish pointing upwards in a 90° angle, like in this image [8]. I couldn't find any better quality photo of the receiver in that position, and I was unable to get a direct link to the linked Google search result (from somewhere on this[9] Facebook account?), that's why I initially chose to not include this Google link in my reply but instead picked images of similar looking antennas for illustration. Nakonana (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by PepaSab (talk · contribs)

Paintings in copyright, author Quimet Sabaté Casanova (1936), no OTRS permission cited

Docosong (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisplau, esborreu les imatges fetes per mi. M'ha quedat clar PepaSab (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otis Boykin and resister patent.png

Photo of a person who lived from 1920 to 1984. Date is wrong, and "author's life plus 70 years or fewer" would be 2054 given that it's claiming the photo to be a self-portrait (which it may or may not be). Belbury (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the copyright registration database I cannot find any image for "Otis Boykin" or "Otis F. Boykin" or "O. F. Boykin", registration was required up to 1989. I can easily find his patents in the patent database. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the portrait appears to be NIHF, from 2014, but they don’t give a print source (this looks like it was scanned from a newspaper). The issue of the newspaper may have been renewed without mentioning Boykin’s name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Daniel vilela

Appears to be from the subject's campaign material: https://www.instagram.com/mdbgoias/reels/

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bom dia.

Sou funcionária pública e atuo na vice-governadoria do Estado de Goiás. Apesar de esta foto ter sido postada no Instagram do MDB, foi produzida por nossa equipe do Estado de Goiás no exercício de função, tendo, portanto, domínio público. Além disso, necessito alterar o nome do arquivo, uma vez que 'vilela' está com a primeira letra minúscula. Licrb (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Katuni5

Multiple instances of duplicate uploads, already existing national flags with just a waving effect added, "versions" of flags (some of which are fictitious) where it is unclear what differentiates them from the main file used on multiple projects. Has also threatened retaliation against another user (see User_talk:NorthTension#If_you're_going_to_act_rudely,_go_to_Namuwiki. and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Nenets Autonomous Okrug (Latest version).svg). User may also be related to User:Azredcon4, who has been doing similar things with anthems and (just like this user) some coat of arms (and in some cases these two have been the only ones to edit a particular or obscure file unlikely to be used by anyone else). If it's not too much of an issue, this particular deletion request took me a lot of time to label, so would someone else be willing to handle Azredcon4's? --HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Flag of Spain (Coat of arms, Middle).svg, File:Flag of Egypt (Coat of arms, Black color).svg and File:Flag of Egypt (Coat of arms, Red color).svg, since the first one is quite often used to incorrectly display the flag of Spain, as I was able to find out via image search, and the other two are just plain-color versions of the coat of arms that have every right to be there. I'm not sure about the others; most of them are really unnecessary, but some are SVG versions of images we have in other formats only, so I'm not sure they need to be removed. As for User:Azredcon4, a lot of his uploads are probably in the public domain and can be left here, but his duplicates of existing files are probably worth removing unless they are of better quality. 5.142.178.40 16:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the ones on Crimea, I say keep, as half are vectorized versions of already existing files (File:Crimean_flag_with_Crimean_Tatar_tamga.png, File:Flag_of_Crimea_With_Coat_of_Arms.png, and the others? Well, I checked and as it seems the RGB version is common in at least the government of the Republic of Crimea, and the latest version? Shown to be the flag digitally in the law on state symbols, and the site of the R.C. Maybe needs a renaming (possibly to "Flag of Crimea (Alternate colours).svg"), but deserves to stay.

Now then, Flag of Crimea (design)? Seems stolen from Reddit. Public domain yes, but why would you need this here?

The other files? St Petersburg? Delete. The "Picture Description" flags? Delete.

The "latest version" flags may need more research to see whether or not they are genuinely the latest version or not. But they're usually so similar to the original... why even bother having separate files in the first place for most of these; why not just update the original? (I mean, I can understand Crimea {yes again, its completely protected, but also both versions are in use, warrants its own file})

Northern Ireland, keep, I can tell it's used.(Google Images), Yandex Images)

The PNG/GIF (if any) vectorizations? Keep. Dunno why those would be removed.

Under normal circumstances, I would check Lugansk's official page to see if the colours are real or not for the latest version here; but guess what, I can't access it! So I have to go the Federation Council. Which happens to show that the Crimean colours that were originally there, are still being used, and the Lugansk colours of Wikipedia, are true. (Not the latest version thingy.)

Without the ability to access the site I can't make any further judgement so better safe than sorry for now and keep. The Federal Council version of Kherson? Keep.

The CoA of Zaporizhia (2022)? Looks like I can't see a difference between this and the normal file. Delete.

The Coat of Arms of Komi? Can't access their site, but their favicon shows the coat of arms that is shown here. Should stay as an alternate version.

i hope all of that made sense to you. Kxeo (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A prior version for NI already exists at File:Flag of Northern Ireland (1953–1972, 3-2).svg. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be the same crown, however, I could find some versions prior that have almost the same design. Problem is they're more detailed than this version; of which I can tell is the used one. Kxeo (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at 4 random files and all had alternate color variations. I am not sure which is correct. --RAN (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what to do with them, maybe delete most of them? Güiseppi669 (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the flag variations are properly licenced by the drawing author, my vote is to

Keep all which are no direct duplicates of existing files. Sure to keep the SVG-files if otherwise there are only PNG- or JPG-files in commons, but I don't see a problem with whose having a waving effect added either. People are not stupid - they see the artistic waving effect and will not use the flags as "the official one". But as there is a series of "Nuvola" flag files, those wavy files are just a alternative way of graphical representation - as long as the licence is OK, as in Flag of Turkmenistan, Picture Description.svg, properly licences by cc-by-sa-4.0. I don't have a doubt that the uploader is in fact the creater of that file (it looks selfmade...) - or is there any proof it would be taken from somewehere else? ThomasPusch (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it's not sensible to bulk delete all of the files as a bunch. HapHaxion said above on a single file "seems stolen from Reddit" - that may be, doesn't seem stolen to me, but as such this is just an unsourced accusation. If something should be taken from somewhere: state a proof and the file can easily be deleted. ThomasPusch (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, the Reddit comment was made by User:Kxeon. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/ssawq6/crimea_flag_design/

Is this good enough backup for the claim? I did a reverse image search, and found this fast.

Whether or not vectorising something like this counts, no idea. But honestly thinking it over a little more, it might just need proper credits. Kxeo (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Border Control Entry Permit Israel.jpg

Doesn't seem to fall under {{PD-Israel}} or even {{PD-IsraelGov}}. Botev (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail PD-IsraelGov? --RAN (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it - a statute, regulation, Knesset protocol or court decision? It's clearly an administrative body (government) decision but it's not mentioned in {{PD-IsraelGov}} under Section 1. And Section 2 says that State's copyright expires after 50 years. That kind of permit was first introduced around 2013. --Botev (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication this is copyright-free. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule for undeletion in 2064. --Botev (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LBJ Foundation DIG14086-069 (34650875314).jpg

I believe that Oscar the Grouch, a character from Sesame Street, is still in copyright as a character. I therefore do not think that most, if not all of Category:Oscar the Grouch should be on Commons. Secretlondon (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Character copyrights does not list Sesame Street, however. Secretlondon (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Denis Kostianko (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Флаг ВГУ им. П.М.Машерова.jpg — coat of arms dated to 1910. Might be PD. Belarus has a threshold of just 50 years after author's death? So, if we assume that the author was 20 years old at the time of creation, and they had lived to the age of 80, then they would have died in 1970 and the image would be PD. Aside from that, isn't that Template:PD-RusEmpire anyway?
File:ФМиИТ Выпуск Машерова 2.jpg and File:ФМиИТ 45-46.jpg — things get trickier here as it is dated 1939 and 1945/46, but with the short threshold in Belarus it might still be PD or it might fall under some anonymous author and thus PD rationale.
File:ВГУ Машерова 2022 Ф0253.jpg and File:ВГУ Машерова 2022 Ф0258.jpg — photos with the university building in Vitsebsk with the 1910 coat of arms and some surrounding artsy stuff around it on the facade. Belarus does not have any Commons compatible FoP regulations, if I'm not mistaken. However, the building is of a completely functional design, lacking any creative elements (literally a white rectangle). The only artistic elements are the coat of arms which is most likely PD and the artsy stuff around it. The artsy stuff might fall under de minimis, and if not, it could be blurred, or it could even be cropped so that only the main building of the university is left.

Nakonana (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пришкольный участок Бабиничи 1.jpg — what makes you doubt the own work claim for this one, @Didym? No work of others can be seen in the image, the EXIF data is available, the photo was clearly taken by a non-professional with a non-professional camera. More so, it has the uploader's previous user name written in the bottom left corner (see user renaming log). It would even pass the non-existing FoP of Belarus, and the image is in use. And even if it wasn't in use, it is one of very view images that we have of Category:Babiničy (especially after this deletion nomination will have been handled, it might end up being the only photo of Babiničy left given that it avoids any possibile FoP issues). Nakonana (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Фок бабиничи.jpg — the building here does likely not fall under copyright as it is "standardized building" of the "Kansk" construction type based on a state mandated construction standard of the Soviet Union for one-storey industrial buildings. See [10] [11]. Since it's merely following state standards, it lacks any creative input and falls under the functional buildings / utilitarian industrial design rationale. And since it's a Soviet Union standard, I'd say that FoP Belarus would be irrelevant here. The question here would indeed rather be one of the own work claim for the photograph itself.

Nakonana (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Центр Бабиничи 2.jpg and File:Детская площадка Бабиничи 1.jpg and File:Бабиничи - центр.jpg — all have the uploader's user name in the bottom left corner, have full EXIF data, and were all taken with the same camera. As with File:Пришкольный участок Бабиничи 1.jpg, I don't see a reason to doubt the own work claim. But unlike for the latter, the issue for these three images here is the lack of FoP in Belarus, though.
I'd also say the photo File:A shop in Babiničy.jpg is at least an own work by the uploader as it depicts the same building as File:Бабиничи - центр.jpg but during a different season. The latter has valid EXIF data and user name watermark, and it's very well possible the person took an image of the same scene but during a different season and then cropped it to focus on the shop. The issue is of course still FoP, but I don't see a reason for the doubt of the own work claim.

Nakonana (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue with File:Остановка Бабиничи центр.jpg and File:A road in Babiničy.jpg? It's mostly just a road with nature around it. The bits that might be affected by lack of FoP in Belarus, likely fall under de minimis. Why the doubt about the own work claim? The uploader has multiple images from Babiničy, and some of them have clear EXIF data and user name watermark on them.

Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, File:LIFFERR124367.png — appears to be a personal image of the uploader / selfie (?). The uploader has 167 edits across wiki projects (I don't know whether the edits under their previous user name are included in this count). Is that enough to be allowed to have one personal image on here? Or are the own work doubts to strong in this one?

Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:West London Reef, Spratly Islands.png

The image quality is too poor. Here is an alternative image: File:Da Tay 2022-07-15-00 00 2022-07-15-23 59 Sentinel-2 L2A True color.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 27.67.9.3 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one is much better quality, but are ESA images Creative Commons Copyleft? I feel like I remember other deletion request threads in which it was put forward that they are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]