Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2004/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive December 2004

Image:Judo-KoseiInoue Uchi-mata.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of Image:Judo kosei inoue.jpg. - Andre Engels 19:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy -- Chris 73 23:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Category:Planets

[edit]

Wrong naming (Category:Planets exists) and 0 articles. -- Srbauer 18:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy -- Chris 73 23:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Airship

[edit]

Replaced by category:Airships. Cetegory:Airship (for articles on different airships) was out of system: we already have category:planes for articles on different planes, category:helicopters for pages on different helicopters. Therefore, the category for different airships should be named in plural, too. Kneiphof 11:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think plural/singular categories are both useful. Singular categories have articles related to the general topic (i.e. in Category: Plane about wings, airflow, etc), and the plural has specific instances (i.e. category:Planes: Boeing 747, Airbus A300, Cessna...). -- Chris 73 04:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Categories should always be plural. Plane and Planes as you've described above should be the same thing, or Planes and Parts of a plane. ed g2s • talk 17:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
uh, ok. Will you change Category:Baseball, too? I still think both plural and singular cats can coexist, as they do happily on the english wiki. -- Chris 73 08:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wetland ChongMingDongTan ShangHai China1.jpg, Wetland ChongMingDongTan ShangHai China3.jpg, Wetland ChongMingDongTan ShangHai China2.jpg

[edit]

Image:Kehrwiederturm 002.jpg

[edit]

unknown copyright status. --Shizhao 07:47, 10 12月 2004 (UTC)

Now known. -guety 04:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kept. User tagged it GFDL afterwards. villy 08:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Dali Purgatory1.jpg, Image:Dali Heaven1.jpg, Image:Dali Hell1.jpg Image:Dali Divine Commedy.jpg

[edit]

Not out of copyright as uploader claims - Dali died in 1989.--Eloquence 04:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Santa.jpg

[edit]
  • Definitely not the work of the US Government. ed g2s • talk 18:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • image already in use on some wikis, eg. pl.wikiquote - instead of deleting, overwrite with a similar image // tsca
      • Right, from PublicDomainSantas.com? ed g2s • talk 22:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If you want to have a picture of Santa, find one; it is not the responsibility of the sysops to run around finding images, but instead to delete copyright violations. James F. (talk) 01:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Delete. James F. (talk) 01:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted, but replaced with free use image of Santa (ish).
    • Agreed. If it is not PD then it should be replaced. But please give us some time to find that replacement. Till the end of the week perhaps? --TOR 10:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Oops. Silly me. Didn't bother to check the image. :P I see it already got replaced. Sorry for the cofusion. --TOR 10:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flag images by user:Marc Mongenet

[edit]

user:Marc Mongenet has uploaded a great number of high-quality flag images and thereby closed many gaps. As far as I can see, they all seem to be from the CIA world factbook, sometimes improved. However, he did not check what flags were already avaliable here at Commons, thus creating many duplicates. Often, the avaliable flags are better than the new ones (even though they just are somewhat larger in many cases). In these cases, they should be deleted.

Here's the list, Marc's image first, the better version second:

More are to follow. -- Sebastian Koppehel 06:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(To save work, I'll not add any more flags until we have come to some kind of conclusion here -- Sebastian Koppehel 13:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

See also User talk:Marc Mongenet, I don't know where the better discussion place is. Marc Mongenet 07:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, several of my new flags are better because I choosed an image height (300) that is a multiple of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, 60, 75, 100 and 150. It allows pixel perfect ratio without color aliasing for horizontal stripes on flags like Image:Flag of Armenia.png, Image:Flag of Austria.png, Image:Flag of Azerbaijan.png, Image:Flag of the Bahamas.png, Image:Bulgaria flag large.png, Image:Flag of the Central African Republic.png. The 1200x800 size of the big flags lacks this interesting math property and does not allows perfect rendering of those flags. Marc Mongenet 09:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quite possibly your versions are better than the once we had originally. But creating dublicates is not good, anyway. So, maybe in some cases the old flag should be delete - but that would mean to check all wiki-projects in alle languages for usage of that flag. Maybe it would be better to replace the existing flag with your new one in some cases, but under the exact same name, so the image links would not have to be changed? -- Duesentrieb 15:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, duplicates cause maintenance problems and reduce cache hits, it should be avoided, I agree. I should have uploaded my flags earlier.:( Concerning the old flags names, they use various naming schemes (like Image:Flag of Botswana.png and Image:Bulgaria flag large.png), isn't it a problem? What do you think about keeping flags of various sizes? For synthetic images like flags, automatic resize gives sub-optimal results, so having ready-to-use flags of several sizes have plus sides too (even if small plus). I also have a whole collection of 75px high hand-optimized flags, used on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_drapeaux_des_pays_du_monde (note also how full window width can be used). Marc Mongenet 16:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: moved from my talk page Marc Mongenet 15:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC). Hi - thanks for all the flags - but have you checked in the category category:National flags and in National insignia, which of the flags where already present? It makes no sense to have multiple copyies of the same flag, the version of the best quality should be kept, the rest should be deleted. Please look though the flags you uploaded and check which are redundant - and schedule the redundant ones for deletion (or the put the old one up for deletion if it was of poor quality - but the remember to change the entry in National insignia). Thank you -- Duesentrieb 19:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't check. I uploaded flags of all countries of the world and some territories, the full CIA Worldbook in fact. I am not sure it was a good idea, but at least now there a complete flags collection, all with the same license, the same height (important for floating galleries like http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_drapeaux_des_pays_du_monde ), the same border (no border), the same naming scheme, and highly optimized (high compression, as few colors as possible per flag). All flags have been "hand-optimized". Marc Mongenet 07:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a slight advantage to have several versions of the same flag at different sizes. This is because an automatic resize has to use (a lot) more colors in the reduced image than in the original one. So automatically resized images have less clear color transition (there may be one transition pixel of averaged color) and less good compression ratios. Good compression ratios may be specially usefull in galleries with hundreds of flags. Note that I also have a full collection of 75px high hand-optimized flags, used for http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_drapeaux_des_pays_du_monde , that I can upload, if it's a good idea. Marc Mongenet 07:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll answer all points brought forward in one go:

  • Marc has given us a complete collection of all national flags, same size, very good to reasonable graphical quality, optimised for small file size, uniform naming scheme. This is indeed the strongest case for keeping them, and keeping them all. We might consider keeping them separately from other flags that we also might want to retain on Commons because they are superior.

However, to settle with the CIA collection as it is would be inacceptable. There are wrong or questionable width-to-height ratios, for example for Guyana, Burundi, Macedonia, and Hungary. Other flags are simply graphically flawed, e.g. Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, and China.

It should be noted that a uniform size for all flags is desirable, but it's not so bad if some are smaller or bigger than others. For a gallery, nobody would use 300px flags anyway.

The other points are minor:

  • The 800px height doesn't allow pixel perfect rendering of vertical stripes, usually (defaced) tricolours. In my opinion that is not a problem, but bigger images are better suited for printing (yes, excerpts from Wikipedia are being printed).
  • Having different sizes of the same flag is unnecessary as the Wikimedia software is able to resize images. I believe Marc's concerns about file size, while rightful in principle, are exaggerated.

I still think the best idea would be to incorporate from the CIA collection what we are still missing otherwise or what is better than what we had before. Then we should unify the file names (whatever the scheme we settle with, it should not contain a size or a relative size such as "medium"). Then we should work toward a uniform size. Small versions of all flags might or might not be made availabe in addition to that.

Alternatively, we might keep the CIA flags and upload better versions of some of them. Not to engage in too much self-praise here, but it cannot be in our interest to lose a Chinese flag like for one like File:China flag 300.png. The uniformity in file name and image dimensons could be preserved.

Sooner or later the whole problem will hopefully become irrelevant - when we will be able to use SVG images. -- Sebastian Koppehel 13:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) PS: As I'm writing this, there appears to be server trouble, so the images might not be visible.

I agree, many CIA flags are wrong and we should have corrected flags in commons. In fact I corrected the ratio, and sometimes the color (but anyway flag colors are often not standardized), of many flags I submitted. But many errors may subsist. Concerning the byte size, if Wikipedia reduces image:Switzerland_flag_300.png to 75px, the result is of a size of 504 bytes; that's 5 times the size of an hand-optimized reduction (107 bytes, see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Switzerland_flag_medium.png ). Concerning the uniform pixel size, note that an absolutely uniform height (width has no importance) is crucial for floating presentation like the one in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_drapeaux_des_pays_du_monde Marc Mongenet 17:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but of course you wouldn't make such a list from unresized 300px flag images, no? So they would have to be resized anyway, and that's why I think that uniform size, while nice, is not our top priority. As for pre-made thumbnails, that's a matter we don't need to discuss here. I have no objections to that as long as we keep a more or less "neutral" version of each flag which may be used for any purposes and is big enough for that. If we have smaller special-purpose versions, fine. Of course, a factor of five is impressive, but let's not forget that we are talking about 397 bytes here - less than the characters in this posting of mine, and almost invisble compared to the ca. 186k that en:Switzerland occupies, all images, stylesheet, JavaScript included. But again, that's not my concern here.
So then, what should we do? Go for 300 pixels high flags, throw out the bigger ones and improve the CIA World Factbook series by supplanting them with better versions? In that case, what about the names? The "300" would be awkward if at some point in the future we should decide to use bigger images. Or - should we keep all images from the CIA series and try to build a better collection in parallel? In any case I think the deletion request becomes obsolete. -- Sebastian Koppehel 23:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have also made a complete 75px high flags serie. Its size is suitable for galleries, and already used in the French Wikipedia national flags gallery (hyperlink above). Should I also upload the *_75 serie? Marc Mongenet 16:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the problem with flag sizes, I think the problem is similar, but less problematic, than the one with bitmap fonts: automatic scaling gives suboptimal results. The best would be vectorized flags (and even in this case, at least with fonts, hinting is required), but right now we only have bitmaps for flags. Marc Mongenet 16:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the {DeletionRequest} tags. -- Sebastian Koppehel 23:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

just a little note: i do not think wikimedia is exactly short on hdd on the images server. From what i gather any thubnail that is ever used (even if only in a preview) stays around as long as the original image. Plugwash 01:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Images kept -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Milice ecole.jpg

[edit]

It shows members of the paramilitary organisation of Vichy France. While taken lass than 70 years ago, the uploader argues that he strongly doubts "that a Milice employee, or his or her heirs, would claim copyright on such a document". This line of reasoning has two flaws, a) it is not certain that the photograph was indeed taken by a member of the organization or that nobody would claim the rights to the image; b) even if the author of a copyrighted work is unknown or certain not to turn up, that work is still copyrighted. At the very best, this "de facto" status amounts to "we can use it and get away with it", which is somewhat similar to "fair use" which Commons currently doesn't allow. In other words, if our goal is to only have legally "unencumbered" material, then there can be no such thing as "de facto public domain" for us.

It's a fine and useful image and certainly a more unique contribution than the nth picture of Plantus neverus heardoffia (not that I want deride our brave botanists). It's not my intention to stand up for the rights of the discriminated former Milice employees, and few things could be further from me than wanting to scare away a user. But I think it's not compatible to Commons policy to keep this image. -- Sebastian Koppehel 06:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The image is used on some articles on the Wikipedias. If to be deleted, would you be so kind as to drop me a message so that I can move it away to the Wikipedias under {{fairuse}} (or do it yourself, at your choice)?
We'd have to discuss the topic with Villy, who told me posting the image was probably ok. David.Monniaux 07:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the image is used at fr:Milice and en:Milice. I'm not currently registered at any of those two, but I could register. I'll notify Villy and ask him what he thinks. -- Sebastian Koppehel 13:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No consensus, images kept -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Perdidos no Espaço.jpg

[edit]

No copyright information, looks like fair use.--Eloquence 12:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Eloquence:

I scanned myself this image from the DVD (it is a frame from the DVD) playing the movie and using ksnapshot. I think it does not violate copyrights because I used only one frame from a "Lost in Space" episode 1 hour long.

Campani 17:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it does not violate copyrights, because it'd be fair use in a LiS article. Commons, however, does not allow fair use images. Ausir 18:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Image deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArdvarkHasAnItch

[edit]

Probably Wikimedia Commons is not the right place for this. --Franz Xaver 00:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been discusssed here at the village pump, but where this project should go is still up in the air.

All content pertaining to the ArdvarkTheAardvark books is cc-by-sa. Although all the pieces of that are not strictly supporting other wiki articles (such as wikipedia, etc) all the bits make up a cohesive whole and are available to be used by other projects. That seemed to be the critera OldakQuill laid out when we discussed it.

Wikibooks was offered as a possible place for this open project, but as all of the images (and their supporting documents, these stories) are free and open I'm not sure where the 100% best place for this is yet. I'm certainly open for discussion. Is the consensus that the images should stay here and all the chapters and other info should go to wikibooks?

Eric Skiff 08:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Probably Wikibooks is really the better place for your texts. Wikimedia Commons IMO is the place for images, sound files ... , for all stuff which is to be used commonly by several wikipedias. If discussions come to the result that pure texts will stay here, I recommend to make this available on the talk page of your texts. So, anyone can read and you avoid renewed deletion requests. --Franz Xaver 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No problem, I'll begin to move the texts over to wikibooks and leave the images and organization page here. Please give me a few days to get the content moved over and I will resubmit deletion requests for the appropriate pages. Eric Skiff 21:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Images kept, article deleted as it was moved to wikibooks -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lazio flag.png

[edit]

I'm not sure about the license, so delete this image please, thanks.--Dav 59 14:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:CoronaSolar.jpg

[edit]

This image is from SOHO, jointly operated by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). NASA images are public domain by U.S. law, but I don't think this is true for ESA images. Their copyright notice allows non-commercial use but says nothing about commercial use. --Rick Sidwell 01:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kandinsky images

[edit]
  • Image:Kandinsky Composition VI 2.jpg and Image:Kandinsky Composition-VIII.jpg. Claimed to be PD, but I would like to have the relevant Russian laws first, since Kandinsky died in 1944. - Andre Engels 22:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Nationality of Kandinsky is a bit complicated topic. He got German nationality in 1928, then moved to France and in 1939 got French nationality. I heard the Russian works before 1973 are PD because Russia (former USSR) hasn't singed Internatonal Copyright Treaty since then, so if those pictures are concerned with Russian laws, I guess they are PD. But if we should consider German or French laws, they are still copyrighted. --Aphaia 11:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
kept -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Closeup of an blue-green human eye.jpeg

[edit]

Stock.xchng image, restrictive license, see their terms of conditions. ed g2s • talk 16:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose until further explanation. The image page states that there is no usage restriction. jefras a.k.a Joăo Estęvăo A. de Freitas user page mentions : I am a retired designer, and I have been taking photographs ever since I was very young. I love to create images of everyday life and all that surrounds me. Thank you very much for your comments about my photos. Your comments inspire me even more to search for the best examples of the beauty and spontaneity of life. If my photos are useful to you, please send me an e-mail and let me know. I am always happy to hear that what I enjoy doing so much is also enjoyed by others. So what exactly do you mean ? Were you referring to the general http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms ? If *you* want an image to be deleted upon terms of condition, please use good manners and give the full information and reasons in order for everybody to make their mind without crawling on external sites. I don't suppose you have answered User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (who is an admin here just like you) question, this seems to be typically beyond your sense of courtesy. villy 20:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I answer almost all questions as soon as I read them, and I've just answered Ævar. I have explained this situation to several users now in detail. It is the responsibility of the uploader to check the license of an image. The general terms of the site refer to all the images. Just because the user page does not repeat the restrictions, does not mean they do not apply. In order for us to be able to use image the user has explicity specify either another license (e.g. vxdigital) or use a phrase like "you may use my images without restriction and without permission" (e.g. Lotus Head). Jefras has done neither of these, and as such we must delete the image. Other users have been known to complain about their images being passed around as "public domain" images (see Image talk:Placa de asiento.jpg). Please don't loose your temper with me, I don't want to see this images go as much as you, but unfortunately we're not allowed to use them. ed g2s • talk 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your explanation. I've written to jefras in order to get an authorisation. From what I read in the terms of conditions the problem is related to the prohibition of selling and redistribution. So before deletion, it appears commonsense to try to get a permission, speaking about an image which was on Featured Pictures. So I insist on waiting an anwser a couple of weeks before deletion. If there is no anwser, I'll support the deletion. I do not question User:ed_g2s good will or ability, only his curt way of communicating. And working in the legal area, I am in position to understand-asse legal problems as long as they are exposed at least a bit. villy 18:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Ed knows what he's talking about. James F. (talk) 03:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:WHO.png

[edit]

It is based upon en:Image:WHO.png, which wasn't exported correctly. I've uploaded another version, which is exported fine: Image:WHO flag.png. -- Lucero del Alba 09:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:UNESCO-logo.png

[edit]

It is based upon en:Image:Unesco.png, which wasn't exported correctly. I've uploaded another version, which is exported fine: Image:UNESCO flag.png. -- Lucero del Alba 09:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

are you SURE this is pd it doesn't seem it to me. Maybe both images should be removed from commons and the image in en retagged. Plugwash 00:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
deleted one image -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kela tunnus.png

[edit]

This is a logo of a corporation and not PD. -- Peter_Aut 07:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Olorin31k

[edit]

Givs credit to RedNova.com, the page says © 2002-2004 RedNova.com. All rights reserved. --> Copyvio. -guety 02:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possible that some are from NASA, but they should be uploaded from there if they are, not our job to check. I recommend we delete them all. ed g2s • talk 03:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
deleted all -- Chris 73 04:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Firefox1.png

[edit]
  • Reason: inappropriate copyright status. I've noticed that this is provided as a public domain image, and currently in use in an Wikinews' article (Wikinews is still not decided about the license, and all contents are under public domain so far). But under some, if not many, laws, "look-and-feel" of a computer software interface is copyrightable. I am not sure if a screenshot of a GPL'd software is released also under GPL, or GPL does not cover that aspect of work, and therefore the screenshot is not free at all. If the former is the case, perhaps the image does not need a deletion. But I didn't know where to ask, so I place this request. Tomos 05:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If anything this would be GPLed as a derivative work. And I'm fairly sure "look-and-feel" is not copyrightable under at least US law. In the most famous case on the issue, en:Apple v. Microsoft, the judge basically threw out the "look and feel" argument. That said, the icons depicted here are copyrightable, and presumably they are GPLed, and therefore this is a derivative work. As it is a PNG, I suppose you could say it's in source code form (the preferred form of the image for making modifications would be the PNG itself). Then you've gotta take the aggregation clause ("In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.") and say that the GPL only applies to the image itself, and not the article as a whole. Basically, I wouldn't sweat it. After writing this and looking further, I found some discussion of this on a debian mailing list, and also looked at the firefox licenses to realize that not *everything* is GPL (some of it is MPL). So, basically, now I have no clue. I still doubt this is going to be a problem, but I'm less than 100% convinced. Anthony 06:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the research, Anthony. I just have found my earlier post on Wikilegal-l (now replaced by Foundation-l) [1], and Michael Snow's answer [2] about copyrightability of screenshot. It is perhaps the case that even if "look and feel" is not copyrightable, screenshot is. I also found this Image:Biglinux1.png screenshot, which is GPL'd. Tomos 06:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do we delete them then? I would agree with the above legal argument that they should go. ed g2s • talk 03:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted -- Chris 73 04:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus

[edit]

I found this article in canditates for speedy deletion. IMO, this was not in accordance with guidelines for speedy deletion. So I post it here. - I think, it is too early to change articles to categories as long as voting on this matter has not come to a decision. --Franz Xaver 21:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete Category:Felis silvestris catus instead of the article. It is not necessary to have both a category and an article, both with the same content. One of this should be deleted. Wait until voting is finished. --Franz Xaver 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would keep the category Category:Felis silvestris catus, but i don't mind if these 2 pages coexist either. In other words please don't delete. --Monet 15:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Kept, until vote on image location has been decided -- Chris 73 04:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:British Virgin Islands flag.png

[edit]

I 'm sorry, I don't see the image Image:British virgin islands flag 300.png.--Dav 59 20:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm asking Dav 59 on his French Wikipédia user page to confirm his deletion request. The image has no problem to show. villy 09:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The image Image:British Virgin Islands flag.png can be delete because the image Image:British virgin islands flag 300.png (It isn't the same image) exist. It's a "doublon". bye--Dav 59 12:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted -- Chris 73 04:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:MO Detail Sectors.jpg

[edit]

This image include FUJIFILM's LOGO. Any Japanese company's logo could not be public domain. It protected japanese copyright law. It is fair use. --Suisui 17:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

kept -- Chris 73 04:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:MO OLYMPUS OL-D640.jpg

[edit]

This image contain OLYMPUS LOGO.Must be fair use.--Suisui 17:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't thing so. This should be coverd by citation rights. -guety 02:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
'Fair use' is the American name for 'citation rights', as far as I know. - Andre Engels 22:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But fair use is much less restrictive than at least the german citation rights. If you want to delete everything with a logo on it it will be lot of work. For Image:MO Detail Sectors.jpg and Image:MO OLYMPUS OL-D640.jpg, the Logos can be edited out, would not hurt the pictures much. -guety 23:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course, we need delete all of them.--Suisui 13:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
kept -- Chris 73 04:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lois de déformation des ressorts

[edit]

The 9 pictures named "Lois_de_deformation_des_ressorts_nn" must be deleted, they have been updated with another title

Jean-Jacques MILAN 14:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you specify better the titles? I can find only to images that would correspond to this request: Image:Lois de deformation des ressorts 06.png and Image:Lois de déformation des ressorts 07.png. - Andre Engels 22:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted --- Chris 73 04:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization of hierarchy astronomy

[edit]

Due to reorganization the following cats are obsolete (and empty):

If there are no objections please delete the cats. -- Srbauer 12:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted James F. (talk) 10:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Image:Zixia-telnet.gif and Image:Zixia-web.gif

[edit]
  • is screenshot of web site, copyrighted. No free.--Shizhao 13:06, 7 12月 2004 (UTC)
Deleted James F. (talk) 10:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Image:EricDrexler.JPG

[edit]

Copyrighted. from http://www.foresight.org/FI/Drexler.html Foresight materials on the Web are ©1986-2004 Foresight Institute. All rights reserved. --Shizhao 17:47, 8 12月 2004 (UTC)

Deleted 18:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Category:Compositae

[edit]

Category superfluous and empty. Correct category is Category:Asteraceae --Franz Xaver 10:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted -- Chris 73 04:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted 04:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Image:Schwebebahn-logo.png

[edit]

Jcornelius says: "The Schwebebahn-Logo, made by myself, PD, 2004", but this Image is from [3], they say on their page: "...Die Verfielfältigung von Inhalten oder Daten, insbesondere die Verwendung von Texten, Textteilen oder Bildmaterial bedarf der ausdrücklichen vorherigen Zustimmung der WSW AG und der Stadt Wuppertal..." --> Jürgen Baier <-- 02:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, this logo is made by myself. I haven't from the WSW. As you see the logo on [4] has x (de:Ecken). --Jcornelius 14:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But, the design and layout is copyrighted. If you paint a Mickey Mouse exactly as Disney does, they will come after you. Sorry, this has to be deleted -- Chris 73 04:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2004/12&oldid=47670227"