Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/09

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.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive September 2005

September 1

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rote armee fraktion logo.png, Image:Schleyer.jpg

PD not correct. --Leipnizkeks 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might be Copyrightfreeuse though; perhaps someone who is fluent in German could contact the source and ask for clarification. Cnyborg 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source would answer, i am pretty sure that the source isn't the copyright holder. --Leipnizkeks 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image:Schleyer.jpg. Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most importend for commons is to protect the legal copyright of terrorists. Harr-Harr-Harr. The lerrorots lawyer coming after you: OK, they blast 20 people, but you did a copyright infringment. Do you think Charels Graner gets royalties for his pictures with Lynndie England in the iraqi Abu Ghraib prison???? Good god! You´re insane!!

Hello! How are you? Which language is that?

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:DDR Nationalhyme.ogg

why should it be PD? no reason given; i dont believe it ...Sicherlich 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have found this audio file at many web sites, it does not automatically mean that it is in public domain. Better reasons and evidence of licensing info should be provided.--Jusjih 02:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Finnish army row picture.jpg

no source given, i dont believe that it is PD ...Sicherlich 00:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Radio Berlin International Interval signal.ogg

no reason why this should be PD ...Sicherlich 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Coats of arms of nederlands families

nothing links here any more, Category:Coats of arms of nederlands families has been replaced by Category:Coats of arms of Nederlands families (lower -> upper case) -- Purodha Blissenbach 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unknown license 27

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown and lacks either copyright tag or source. Thuresson 08:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Labaie-qc.jpg Image:Lago correntoso.jpg Image:Lake-toba.jpg Image:Lamborghini Calà.jpg Image:Latrive chap5 intro OGG.ogg Image:Le Colisee a Rome.jpg Image:Les halles modern.jpg Image:Les halles.jpg Image:Logo2OracleByMejdieu.jpg Image:Logo3OracleByMejdieu.jpg Image:Logo4OracleByMejdieu.jpg Image:LogoUC.gif Image:Logofuac.png Image:LotusTemple.jpg Image:Louis de Broglie-photo.jpg Image:Lulworth Cove.jpg Image:Luoyang.jpg Image:Luoyangpeony.jpg Image:MHP0025.jpg Image:MHP0026.jpg Image:MX5 001.jpg Image:MX5 002.jpg Image:MX5 003.jpg Image:Madhhab.jpg Image:Magnolia flowers.jpg Image:Magnolia fruit.jpg Image:Magnolia.jpg Image:Mago de oz01.jpg Image:Magodeoz2.jpg Image:Maillet et boule de croquet 2005-06-19.jpg Image:Mairie philippsbourg.jpg Image:Manuel Azaña.jpg Image:Mapa de la Isla del Coco.gif Image:Mapa de tabasco.JPG Image:MapaSCZ.png Image:Mapascz.gif Image:Maps-KP-12-13vv.jpg Image:Marktplatz-eberswalde.jpg Image:Marshall Islands seal.png Image:Masonic canadian flag.gif Image:Matrice argument autorite.png Image:Matrice pensee matricielle.png Image:Matrice vetement couleur.png Image:Mauritius coa.png Image:Maxipes-Fík.jpg Image:MaxipesFík1.jpg Image:MaxipesFík2.jpg Image:MaxipesPuppy.jpg Image:Medclim.jpg Image:MedicalCertificate1.jpg Image:Megumuishiguro bogota06.jpg

The four MaxipesFíks were recorded without the copyright tag in the time I was a complete beginner at Wikimedia. The pictures are from a public TV page and the creators of the cartoon do not keep the copyright from being used elsewhere without advertising purposes. I added the tag in the new edit. Thank you for not requesting the deletion any longer.

Uploader does not seem to have added a rights tag; the link is to a page in Czech, which I don't understand; but the target page bears the notation "© Česká televize 1996 - 2005".

If without advertising purposes means "non-commercial use", we can't use it -- Commons is expressly licensed for all use, including commercial. — Xiong 熊 talk * 21:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Integral as region under curve.png

This image is plain wrong, as it contains four too many arrows. --DaTroll 15:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel free to modify the image, and upload your new version with the same title. Anyway, I'm a mathematician, and I don't think there are "four too many arrows". The arrows on f itself are a bit unconventional, but not really a problem. dbenbenn | talk 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I don't see a problem... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It really has four too many arrows: the arrows in f and the arrows that point to the directions where the numbers decrease in the axes. The latter arrows are plain wrong. But the image could be easily correted. -Hapsiainen 07:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, coordinate axes go in both directions. It's pretty typical to have arrows on both ends of each axis. Not a big deal either way, though. dbenbenn | talk 15:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I edited this image and Image:Unit elasticity.png, Image:Elasticity-elastic.png Image:Elasticity-inelastic.png. Deletion request removed. --Warden 08:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --DaTroll 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:La Cigale.jpg

We need someone who knows french copyright here. IP 202.81.18.30 wrote: Deleted image La Cigale, the painting may date to 1872, but the rights on this particular digital image are owned by Corbis & require a licence fee (which I paid for use on my website. However, it was painted 1872 and the painter died 1911. Does it need to be deleted? --startaq 11:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

keep: As the image is a reproduction of the opriginal painting, and not derivative work, there are no extra rights attached to it. If the painting is PD, so is the reproduction. Libraries, Museums and Publishers often try to claim copyright for their reproductions, but as far as I know, those claims are void. (I'm quite sure this is true in Germany and the US, and proably most other countries. I'm not positive about France, though) -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. French law does extend the period of protection for works by artists who gave their lives for France, but this does not apply here. Museums, in France and elsewhere, can sell prints and digital copies of works in the public domain, at any price the market accepts, but they have no particular rights to those images. Cnyborg 16:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm French, despite the fact I did not graduate any law degree. I say this pic is ole enough to be in French Public Domain or some equivalent French term. Yours, Holycharly 22:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept, Thuresson 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wikimedia logos

Image:Wikipedia-logo.png - Copyrighted, not allowed license
Image:Wikipedia-logo-nl.png - Copyrighted, not allowed license
Image:Wiki.png - Copyrighted, not allowed license added on request of Fastfission
Note: I do not want to see these images deleted, but under the current license I don't see any other option than to delete them. CyeZ 15:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we have had this discussion before, and it was generally agreed that Wikimedia-Logos should be an exception to the rule to accept free content only. I'm not happy with the licensing policy (this applies to all mediawiki logos, btw), but I understand that the foundation does this to prevent misuse of the logos - which is much easier to enforce internationally using copyright laws, than it would be using trademarks. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 15:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But why is exactly the same reason by other compagnies not accepted then? Effeietsanders 15:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you (or someone else) show me to this discussion? I've been looking through deletion archives here and on en: and wasnt able to find anything. The image talk pages dont make any mention of such discussion either. CyeZ 15:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the logos can be kept on commons is likely so that they can be referenced by all other wiki projects. The reason they are copyrighted and trademarked is to prevent mis-use and mis-representation. --Fastfission 15:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand both, I don't think that should allow it us to break our own rules though. I creates a precedent to allow other material of questionable license aswell. CyeZ 16:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now. You might as well nominate Image:Wiki.png on the same grounds. It's a very specific and very purposeful exception. --Fastfission 16:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really really need this exception? In my opinion we can just release them as GFDL as all material is supposed to be. CyeZ 16:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Wikimedia logos should be released under the GFDL, then go complain to the Wikimedia people. They decided a long time back that this would not be good, and for good reason as well (it allows them to protect against people claiming to be Wikipedia). The "Deletion requests" page is not the place to argue about this, though. --Fastfission 16:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can ask (not complain) the Wikimedia people, and it would be great indeed if they chose to license their logos under a free license, but in the meantime we shouldn't host them, just like we don't host any other nonfree media. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment The Wikimedia logos were discussed on this page in May, see Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Wikimedia logos. Thuresson 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@Effeietsanders/CyeZ: The reason that we are making an exception for this is that they are our own logos. I'm not happy with the situation, but deleting them would be plain silly. As a side note: did you notice that the text of GFDL itself is not free? Technically, we should not host it, then. But if we don't, we couldn't legally host any material under the GFDL... ironic, isn't it? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, we could make the GFDL available as a non-editable page that wouldn't be part of the database. By the way, I voted to delete the logos last time, and that is still my opinion. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants them hosted here, they should make them free. dbenbenn | talk 02:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to agree: Commons is defined to be a database of free images. The various WMF logos are not free, therefore cannot be hosted here. They can certainly be used here, when appropriate and as permitted; but they must be hosted elsewhere. This is the situation at present and these logos are copyvios.

If we intend to retain WMF logos here, then we must rethink our service structure. I'm okay with that! We can set up a distinct category of non-free images; perhaps restrict them from feed and download. Then, we can -- and should -- populate that with WMF logos, CC logos, and whatever other non-free images we need in order to manage, maintain, and label our service.

But we must make a choice; the present conflict is expedient, but very bad precedent. — Xiong 熊 talk * 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo wrote "I would also vote to delete them." dbenbenn | talk 04:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we should be a free-content hosting site, not a free-content hosting site with some non-free content. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Commons policy: delete. Still I would prefer a change of policy for trademarks. So not just making an examption for the wiki-logo's, but also for the shell, microsoft and ford-logo's. That would be the finest solution imho. Effeietsanders 09:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The logos are stored in the database so they can easily be accessed by other projects. Just because the software doesn't support a separate database for UI images, doesn't mean we shouldn't use this method until another exists. I'm sure most people can live with this one small "hack". ed g2s • talk 13:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't get it. How would it be any better to have the logos in a different directory, or on a different box? They would still have to be usable in free content articles, i.e. the problem stays: can and should the Mediawiki logos be under a free license? Can they be protected effectively with tradmark law alone? Who would pay for dozns of logos to be registered in dozens of countries? Trademarks are expensive...

My point is: if we are strict about this, the logos can't be used by any Wikimedia project. Where they are stored is irrelevant. This would render the logos useless: if we can't use them, they arn't our logos. If anyone can use them, they arn't either. Open content (and software) licenses should really adress this issue explicitely. The curent situation leads to much confusion in a lot of free software projects, too. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, they just can't be hosted here, Wikimedia logos have been used on projects before the commons existed and will continue to be used after we free ourselves of nonfree content, there is such a thing as a local upload. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have been used by the various projects, but that doesn't mean they should be. Jimbo recently decreed that the English Wikipedia would no longer use "by permission only" images, and the logos are by permission only. So the English Wikipedia should only use the logos in cases where fair use applies.

Perhaps we at the Commons should hold a new contest to redesign our logo, with the stipulation that the creator has to release it under the GFDL and cc-by-2.5. We don't have the power to free the other logos, but we can certainly fix Image:Wiki-commons.png. dbenbenn | talk 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like the Commons is independent from the foundation. We could have another design contest, but the logo wouldn't be used officially unless the copyright was transferred to the foundation - so that would be a complete waste of time. ed g2s • talk 10:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly. It's ridiculous not to make these an exception. — Dan | Talk 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
very very strong KEEP. Does this debate have to take place every 6 months? Please see: yet another reason why they shouldn't be deleted. Plus, let me just ask a few questions: If we delete those logos, that means we cannot advertise our own projects on the main page, right? What are the propositions given by the deletionists here to this problem? I believe that in order to prevent this debate from happening, we will need to alter the Commons policy. notafish }<';> 23:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep, unless we get another Commons for the hosting of such images. Or someone volunteers to upload 9 × 2 × 4 × 202 images (9 different logos, 2 different versions of these (with and without text), on 4 different projects in 202 languages) = 14544 images. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 09:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People should really stop quoting "commons policy" as if it is written in stone. The results of previous VfDs on these logos make it de-facto policy that WMF logos are allowed here. ed g2s • talk 10:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see first discussion. --Avatar 11:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Alter Wikimedia Commons policy to allow Wikimedia logos -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wiki.png deleted by User:Paddy for other reasons, the other two images kept. Thuresson 14:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard.jpg

Nice picture, but not known to be under a free license. Original uploader to EN had tagged it as PD because it was featured on a DOE page, but another very similar page on the same site clearly states that they got the image from another source, making it unlikely that it was a federal government production. I suspect a journalist took the picture -- it is a reenactment. Anyway, on EN it is now tagged as fair use and its ambiguous status means it shouldn't be on commons. --Fastfission 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that all photos on federal government websites are public domain is an urban legend. Not only because photos may have been bought from an photo agency, but also because the "fair use" provision applies to those web sites as well. Thuresson 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, yes and no. It's not an urban legend that works of the U.S. federal government, and many state governments, are ineligible for copyright. The error is assuming that all photos on a government website are works of the federal government, which is often not true. Not only can the photos have copyrights held by other sources, but beyond that, there are many agencies which might look to the untrained eye like their creations would be works of the federal government but have their own copyright policies because they are contractor-run (many national labs, for example). "Fair use" only applies to copyrighted documents in any event -- if a document is truly a work of the federal government, then no "fair use" need be claimed at all, as it will simply be ineligible for copyright. --Fastfission 00:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

These are pictures from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, whose license clearly says that it is only free "for educational or scientific purposes" and that "these images may not be used for commercial purposes". So they can't be on Commons. --Fastfission 16:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Katsumi.jpg

Deleted on en.wiki as not released under GFDL. Craigy 02:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept, Thuresson 20:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Central_Africa_countries_(strict).png

Image:West Africa countries (strict).png

The two files above are redundant through better but not identical ones: Image:Africa-countries-central.png and Image:Africa-countries-western.png

These images are made obsolete by Image:Africa-countries-central.png and Image:Africa-countries-western.png which display Central and Western African countries as noted by [CIA's World Factbook]. Lucidity 09:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The strict versions aren't "made obsolete" by the non-strict: The non-strict ones were first, and the strict ones are modifications. I don't know which is correct, but Image:West Africa countries (strict).png is used at JA and ID. I see no reason to delete either of them. dbenbenn | talk 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count 8 9 related maps, and I think they're all wrong -- in content and in name. This page is already plenty long enough and my remarks go into great detail, so I'm continuing this conversation at Talk:Maps of Africa. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I fixed everything. Here's the list of images that need to be deleted, and their replacements:

To delete:

Replaced by:

Any questions about this, please take it to Talk:Maps of Africa. Thank you. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. w:Central Africa makes it clear that the definition of "Central Africa" is ambiguous; Image:Africa-countries-central.png correctly reflects that ambiguity, while its "replacement", Image:Africa (Central region).png, does not. Even for the two regions that are not ambiguous, Horn and Southern, I think the green shade in the original versions is better than the bluish shade in the replacements. dbenbenn | talk 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy deleted "Image:Africa-central-paises.png", other images kept. Thuresson 20:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Eclectic shorthand cross.png

This first upload is buggy : history is missing. Please delete it and use bette Image:Eclectic shorthand by cross.png which has the full history of the picture.

Deleted, Thuresson 00:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:nuage.jpg

The licence is CC-BY-SA for wikipedia.org only. For anything else it is CC-BY-SA-NC, thus not acceptable on commons.

It's not technically possible to license as cc-by-sa "for Wikipedia only". Perhaps someone could explain that to fr:Utilisateur:Khardan and ask him to simply release under cc-by-sa. dbenbenn | talk 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the uploader when you request deletion. Thuresson 00:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 11:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

some Category:Unknown

Image:A-solanine.gif Image:Aarmsalberta.gif Image:Acuifero en sudamerica.gif Image:Adjuntasbandera.jpg Image:Aeropuerto.Barajas.Embarque.jpg Image:Aeropuerto.Barajas.Interior1.jpg Image:Africa-countries-hausa.png Image:Agastache cana1.jpg Image:Agastache mexicana0.jpg Image:Akagera3.jpg Image:Akhasanview.jpg Image:Akihahonden.jpg Image:Akihasanmon.jpg Image:Alancrk.jpg Image:Alatyr.gif -- Breezie 16:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 00:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Outdated images

Image:Landkarte_Elektrenai.png, Image:Landkarte Klaipeda.PNG, Image:Map Alytus.png, Image:Map Druskininkai.png, Image:Map Kaunas.png, Image:Map Marijampole.png, Image:Map Palanga.png, Image:Map Panevezys.png, Image:Map Siauliai.png, Image:Map Silute.png -> the boundaries of counties on these maps are outdated. They changed in 2000. Current maps are created by User:Knutux. Renata3 20:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then they belong in Category:Historical maps or its subcategories. No need to delete them. dbenbenn | talk 20:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep - put a note on the description pages, but do not delete. Outdated maps can be interresting in many contexts. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these maps are just confusing - they ONLY show where the cities are; they do not provide any historical info. I kept within a proper category maps showing old boundaries of counties. But there is no reason to keep outdated dot-maps showing cities! City locations did not change because county boundaries change. These are NOT historical maps. Renata3 03:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good point. But note that the old maps are still used on Wikipedia. If I were you, I would have simply uploaded the new versions over the old maps. You can still do that if you choose, but we certainly shouldn't be deleting free images that are used in articles. In other words, we shouldn't use deletion to enforce content decisions for Wikipedia. (Actually, if I were you, I would have simply made a single new map, and used CSS to position dots on it. See w:Vail, Colorado for an example.) dbenbenn | talk 03:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept. These maps are still used in a lot of articles. Thuresson 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WMATA SmarTrip Card.jpg

A scan of a presumably copyrighted metro train card. dbenbenn | talk 03:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not realizing the mistake I made when I uploaded the image here (I'm used to uploading to Commons and using {{GFDL-self}}), after the request for deletion was made, I uploaded it to Wikipedia with the {{fairuse}} tag. That ought to straighten out the copyright status, and this image ought to get zapped. Schuminweb 03:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gauge Chart.pdf

It's a self-promotional source document in PDF format. I don't think this can be useful to any wikimedia project. dbenbenn | talk 18:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's useful to a project, it's better used in an editable article, rather than a static PDF-document. Cnyborg 18:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm violently opposed to PDF in general, except in certain highly specific contexts, and I don't like it then. I've downloaded this PDF to my local machine, and if there's any demand, I'll open it up and either rewrite it as a text table or create an image, whatever is needed. For now, yes, delete. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

images of User:MacTartan

copyvios -- Breezie 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tartan files is from a website that said it's in the public domain. Images in the public domain is after all free to use. If I'm wrong, please tell me, and otherwise I'd like that these tartans get from this list. The website is http://www.celticdistrict.com/CeltDance.shtml

MacTartan 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is another complex issue and I'm continuing the discussion at Category talk:Tartans. I do think the images should all be deleted, but on technical grounds only. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept, no evidence that this is copyright violation. Thuresson 09:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Leni Riefenstahl, SOS Eisberg.jpg

great picture, but it doesn't seem to be PD. --Flominator 10:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image may or may not be PD -- I'd like to hear your reasoning. It is taken from a site that seems cheerfully to ignore all copyright issues, so that's not a good reference. — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 01:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Muhhamed Ali vs Antonio Inoki.jpg

obvious copyvio. Duncharris 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think so ? Tried to ask the uploader to en wiki ?--Denniss 01:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!?!?!??? Perhaps it wasn't so obvious after all. Ever considered that ringside photographers at a boxing match might want to copyright their photographs in order to make a living? Duncharris 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very polite comment. Few things in this world are totally obvious. The uploader was questioned on en: on September 6 and made no reply, so I agree the image should go. But let's be civil about it, okay? — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Original uploader to en: has chosen not to answer. Thuresson 01:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unknown license 28

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 09:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mellita longifissa.jpg Image:Mengele.jpg Image:Merseburg.jpg Image:Metrovalencia.jpg Image:Mg-KClO4.JPG Image:Michelangelo-pieta.jpg Image:Milan.jpg Image:Minsk.gif Image:Miramare castle Prosecco.jpg Image:Miss Canada Universe 2005.jpg Image:Mithras.JPG.jpg Image:ModKore-Hybrid-ReBirth update.ogg Image:Monedaschile.jpg Image:Montrealcoa.gif Image:Monument.jpg Image:Mooie foto toegangspoort.jpg Image:Morcote ticino.jpg Image:Morocco flag large.png Image:Morrison1970.jpg Image:Mortadelo.jpg Image:Morysin.jpg Image:Moskow biennale of contemprary art 28.01.2005-28.02.2005 PICT0002.jpg Image:Motobilogo.jpg Image:Munro-map-sec2.png Image:Munro-map-sec3.png Image:Munro-map-sec4.png Image:Murderdbird.jpg.jpg Image:Multireferentialite exemple.png Image:Murdered bird2.jpg Image:Musée Curtius.jpg Image:NDParis.jpg Image:NDRoyan.jpg Image:Nauru-rohrsanger-stamp.jpg Image:Nenúfares.jpg Image:Netherland River Meuse.jpg Image:NeuesBahnhofsviertel-BI.jpg Image:Newmellewatertower.jpg Image:Nina Hagen.jpg Image:Nina hagen.jpg Image:Niranjana.jpg Image:Noia.png Image:Noirefontaine.jpg Image:Normal smgallosmile.jpg Image:North Korea Coat.png Image:Nuevotestamento.jpg Image:Numbat1.jpg Image:Numbat2.jpg Image:Numbat3.jpg Image:Oberstdorf.jpg Image:Obra01.jpg

Image:Montrealcoa.gif is a coat of arms. I added the "Coatofarms" tag. I know they are allowed on Wikipedia, can you confirm the status on Commons? Thanks. Lawrence Lavigne 16:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Muehlau-blason.png: This image does not violate any copyrights. I have created more than 200 similar images myself. These are all listed in Category:Coat of arms of argauer municipalities. In this particular case, I simply forgot to add the required copyright information. My apologies. --Voyager 09:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:newmellewatertower.jpg was taken by me with all intents of no copyright. I simply forgot that step, whoops. Thanks for the heads up Jcarkeys 02:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 01:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

All flags uploaded by user Bab83

All the flag of swiss municipalities with .gif at the end are coming from flag of the world and are not free as stated in the license given by the uploader. Moreover the uploader attribute the copyright to himself. exemple: Image:Bardonnex-drapeau.gif and [1] As there is a lot of image to delete I request your help. 83.79.8.26, September 6, 2005, 17:01 UTC

User:Bab83 has uploaded a long list of flags. A spot check shows a striking similarity between them and the flags at Flags of the World, whose copyright policy is quite restrictive [2]. Compare for example

Image:Bardonnex-drapeau.gif with [3], Image:Veyrier-drapeau.gif with [4] and Image:Meinier-drapeau.gif with [5]

Checking this user's other contributions, it is apparent that he/she has a very liberal view on copyright, having uploaded several photos not released under a free license.

Thuresson 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can add also image from other swiss municipalities.

Can we have some filenaming consistency please?? All flag images should begin with the word Flag -- is that not the most reasonable approach?

Anyway: It's not clear to me that any national or political flag is available under a free license. Wikipedia can surely claim free use, but I just don't know enough to say we should host any such flags on Commons. — Xiong 熊 talk * 08:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:2004 katholische-akademie-habermas-ratzinger 1-799x533.jpg

The given permission is too restrictive for the commons and it can't be moved back to Wikipedia either, unless a fair use rationale can be given. (User:MacGyverMagic, contact me at En-Wikipedia if you need confirmation it's me) - 82.172.23.66 19:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is licensed under cc-by and therefore is suitable for commons. "[...] es soll, wie von Ihnen empfohlen, unter die Lizenz Creative Commons gestellt werden" means that they allow that this image is licensed under a creative commons license. It's not clear which creative commons license this is, but maybe the exact license was named in the letter of request. keep. --Baikonur 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a good license here. Of course, I don't read the language, which doesn't help; but I see nothing to indicate a specific CC license and I do see the word "WIKIPEDIA", which doesn't aid the cause; and the expression "(C)", which doesn't look good either. It bothers me that the letter is included in the file description; that belongs on its talk page; and if included, should be included in full, not mutilated. Indeed, the best establishment of provinance and licensure would be a scan of the letter -- it appears to be a paper letter. (I like to include email statements of license with all headers).

I suspect that the license was granted in ignorance, and the intent was to permit use in Wikipedia alone; I suspect that the grantor would not be pleased to entertain commercial use. I would be swayed by a letter from the photographer in English demonstrating some understanding of CC licensing and specifying a given CC license. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request is pointless since nobody cared to notify the uploader. I've done so now, 19 days later. Thuresson 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also notified de:Benutzer:Papissimus, who originally uploaded the picture to de-Wikipedia. He's probably the person who contacted the "Katholische Akademie". --Svencb 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proper license -- keep

Image kept. Thuresson 09:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Suisse geographique.png

Is a copyrighted work of www.swisstopo.ch --Filzstift 20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see a statement to that effect on fr:, from whence this comes. Must go. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 01:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

image:Cosmópolis 0008.jpg

Unencyclopedic, silly, redundant with Image:Cosmópolis 0004 train.jpg and Image:Cosmópolis 0006 train.jpg. Duncharris 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's Cosmópolis (São Paulo) city about various angles. It's a girl pushing the train, it's artistic, it's cultural. Not wrong with this pic and the Category:Cosmópolis are linked on w:pt:Cosmópolis. --FML

^hi 19:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly bizarre high regard you have of your own snapshot. No, clearly, it isn't artistic, it's not used anywhere to illustrate anything, as for its cultural worth, do Brazilians have a penchant for pretending to push engines? Is it Brazilian cow tipping? No. it's just a waste of bytes. Angles my arse. Duncharris 23:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like the others in Category:Cosmópolis, but this one just isn't "encyclopedic" (we need a better word for "potentially useful to Wikimedia"). dbenbenn | talk 06:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on! What's wrong with the girl? This girl lives in Cosmópolis, her name is Caroline and she is part of landscape. Now, "people" don't are "encyclopedic"? Think again please, it's a big big big big big mistake. --FML

^hi 00:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine if the girl were the subject of the photo. But she isn't, really. You can't even see her face. And Cosmópolis isn't the subject of the picture, either, because the girl gets in the way. It seems to me the picture doesn't really have a subject, and that's why it should be deleted. dbenbenn | talk 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just sad and I'm sorry. --FML

^hi 01:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with the Deletion request. --Martinroell 21:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's keep it. I agree it's not much, but why must it be? No face, so model release doesn't come into it. Uploaded by photographer with a free license, so no problem there. It's in focus, reasonably cropped, and the color balance is acceptable. It may not be useful in Wikipedia, but it might do very well in Wikibooks.

Let's not have an utterly bizarre high regard for the value of storage. It is almost impossible to measure the real cost in dollars of maintaining a single image. In the quantities of data we store routinely, I doubt the cost is more than a few pennies -- if that. Even if we did have a business model, we wouldn't have any reason to fear that we'd bust our budget because we did not ruthlessly root out photos that don't bid fair to bring in more money.

I can think of six different ways to use this image, right off the top of my head. But then, I'm a creative person, not a mere engineer or an accountant. Perhaps nobody will ever use this image for anything; perhaps somebody will use it as an ingredient in a great work of art. Who can say? But let's not waste time debating photos on the merits. We have quite enough work to do rooting out copyvios, weird biases, misstatements of fact, plug-ugly and pointlessly offensive images, and those whose technical shortcomings make them worthless on their face. Perhaps this one is silly -- but why is that bad? — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has argued about the monetary cost of keeping the picture; I agree with you that it's negligible. But there is another type of cost that is relevant. Bad pictures in our database dilute its usefulness. The more bad pictures we have, the harder it is to find the good ones. dbenbenn | talk 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xiong熊, thank you very so much, you found the right words that my English don't let me to speack. hugs, --FML

^hi 00:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Thuresson 09:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Situ morón espana.jpg

Image:Situ morón espana.jpg and Image:Situ morón.jpg seems to be from viamichelin (zoom out). --Warden 11:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NBD-TMA.gif

I messed up in a number of ways: the structure for the nitro group is actually wrong, the file is gif rather than png, the file needs to be cropped. A fixed version is at Image:NBD-TMA.png. This one needs to go! --Chinasaur 19:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

"% articles" - UNdeletion

These were deleted under the assumption that the linked thumbnails not used on any pages would not be purged. However the purging has already happened - see for example the 50% link on Image:1869 chicago.jpg, which worked when I created it. Thus I am asking for the following pages to be undeleted: --SPUI 15:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a better idea.

I had originally thought that thumbnails, once generated, were pretty much kept forever. Obviously that's wrong. But here's what we do know: when you view a wiki page—a gallery page, an image description page, even an old revision or a deleted revision through Special:Undelete—if the page uses a thumbnail that no longer exists, it gets generated. So, the idea is to edit the image description pages to use whatever thumbnails you want, then remove the thumbnails and link to the old revisions. That way, the thumbnails will get regenerated when needed, just as if they are used in separate article pages. And admins can't delete old revisions of image description pages, so your links will be perfectly safe! See Image:1869 chicago.jpg for an example.

If this solution is accepted, then Template:Thumb and the thumbnail pages it's used to link to should be deleted. dbenbenn | talk 02:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, those two things are completely unrelated: Template:Thumbnail is for situations where people uploaded thumbnail versions of images - which is always a bad thing. SPUI is asking for undeletion of pages that show an image (uploaded with full resolution) at a convenient scale, larger than on the description page, but smaller than the original. This makes sense if you have a very large picture and a slow connection - however, I don't like the idea of haveing very many pages like this. If we want that, this should become a software option: have links like "50%", etc, in addition to the "full resolution version" link on the description page. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Template:Thumbnail. Template:Thumb was created by SPUI a couple days ago. If my proposal is accepted, then Template:Thumb won't be necessary any more. dbenbenn | talk 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, sorry for the confusion. Well... if ther's Template:Thumb, and we want to allow such pages, I would say it would be better to use this template and the naming convention it imposes. But, as I said, this should really be a software feature. Doing that by hand just clutters the namespace with trivial pages. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Until that software feature gets implemented, I think we should use the history idea I proposed above. See Image:1869 chicago.jpg for an example. dbenbenn | talk 16:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. However, it seems rather inelegant. I still don't understand the "cluttering the namespace" objection - how would you get one of those pages without specifically wanting it? --SPUI 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I don't understand the point. What do these pages do? Does this have something to do with preloading or caching thumbs?

We do not upload thumbs. I have plumped, in extreme cases, for two different resolutions/sizes of the same image: One for display in print at actual size, one for display on screen at actual size. I thought I had a good case for very small images, in a special case -- but I was talked out of it. We rely on the server to resize images.

I looked at Image:1869 chicago.jpg. It's gigantic -- as it should be, if ever to be printed at actual size and retain all that lovely detail. But what's the point of a 50% size version? That's still huge -- I have two 22 inch monitors and (at a fairly high display resolution) they are barely adequate to display the full width of the "small" version -- never mind the height.

As for rendering on the page, the 50% version is far more trouble than the original full size. The latter actually displays as big as it is, pixel for pixel; only a "large thumb", so to speak, of the former is served on its description page.

We are all aware that in Preferences, the Files pane allows us to select the maximum display size for all images on their description pages? I have broadband, big monitors, and a tabbed browser, so I'm fairly liberal; I permit 800x600 max. You can select anything down to 320x240. Also, the display size for thumbnails -- that is, when the markup specifies thumb alone, with no width -- is selectable from 120 to 300px.

I'd like a fuller explanation of the purpose of these pages and of any half- and quarter-size images.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 12:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to actually read the map. Maps are there for information, not for looking pretty. --SPUI 21:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree my history proposal is a bit inelegant, but you have to admit your current solution is a bit inelegant, too. :) You ask "how would you get one of those pages without specifically wanting it?" There are lots of ways. For example, they'll show up in Special:Uncategorizedpages. If this thumbnail page business were to become common, then a large percentage of pages would be thumbnail pages, and the list of Uncategorizedpages would become useless.

Hmmm, looks like using a different namespace would fix that. How about File:1834 Erie.jpg 25%? Or if there's a problem with that, Commons:1834 Erie.jpg 25%? --SPUI 19:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better use 1834 Erie 25%.jpg as filename so they still appear as .jpg files --Denniss 20:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're not jpg files; they're pages with the wikicode for thumbnails. The Image namespace yields a bit of weirdness anyway; I've started using Commons, as in Commons:1885 Chicago & Alton.jpg 50%. --SPUI 21:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons namespace is for policy and maintanance pages - please don't use it for stuff like this. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what namespace should I use? --SPUI 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no namespace you should use for this purpose. dbenbenn | talk 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the non-answer. --SPUI 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What better answer could I give? There's no appropriate namespace; that isn't something I can control. dbenbenn | talk 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you upload resized version of the original images (with 50, 33, 25, whatever percentage of original filesize) if you really need smaller images ? They should be all linked from the original sized image. That's why I suggested to use 1834 Erie 25%.jpg as filename. In no way should you use a different namespace other than Image for the resized images.--Denniss 22:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. That's even worse than having thumbnail gallery pages. Anyway, thumbnails are candidates for speedy deletion. dbenbenn | talk 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Image.gif

REASON -- Non-descriptive filename (Wikipedians want to delete it, upload a message saying "do not upload here", and protect it; see here), orphan Andrew pmk 19:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is to prevent clueless newbies from using and repeatedly overwriting certain generic and extremely common image names such as Picture.jpg; this was initiated by Wikipedia. As well, the file which is currently here is worthless (totally personal) and if it were really needed it could always be renamed. Andrew pmk 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ARGUMENTS --
- Delete. Andrew pmk 19:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image is worthless; the filename (should be) forbidden; the assertion phoney. Delete with extreme prejudice -- and follow the Wikipedian suggestion. I shall now construct an appropriate placeholder for this and any similar situation. (See: Commons:Forbidden filenames.) — Xiong 熊 talk * 14:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the original version of this file doesn't look useful to Wikimedia, and it isn't in fact used, according to check-usage. Delete both versions—there's no need for a "placeholder" telling people not to use this file name. And delete the other copies of the placeholder listed at Commons:Forbidden filenames. And delete Commons:Forbidden filenames itself, as a bad idea. dbenbenn | talk 01:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say why! Support your assertions. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 20:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cities in West Africa

empty and useless category; Category:Cities in Africa ist far from overpopulated. --Magadan ?! 11:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NASA logo bw 2.png

NASA seal. Image description goes to great pains to explain it is the seal, not the logo. But if we read the NASA copyright guidelines, we can see that:

This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo), and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including web pages) that are not NASA sponsored.

So the original uploader must have misread the policy. Needs to be deleted, is not public domain. --Fastfission 19:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the NASA seal was created (not licensed) by the NASA or another federal agency, then it is PD. It may be brotected by separate laws agains misuse, which is the case for most official insignia in many countries - which may be what the policy page is talking about. If the restrictions are not due to copyright, then the seal is OK on the commons, like all the Coats of Arms, etc. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, point 8 of the guidlines says "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." If the guidelines were talking about copyright, we couldn't use any NASA material, since point 1 limits use to "educational or informational purposes". On the other hand, w:NASA Logo says the seal isn't public domain. dbenbenn | talk 20:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely statutes preventing the use of government seals and logos. In any event, the fact is that our use of them, whether or not this is specifically a copyright issue or not, is specifically restrained in ways which would prevent commercial use and many others uses. It is, in effect, not something which can be hosted on Commons, whether for copyright or other reasons. Our use of it is the equivalent of using a "fair use" clause. --Fastfission 23:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow that argument, we will have to delete several thousand coats of arms, seals and flags from the commons, and also all portraits of (living) people -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific federal regulations about their use, yes. I doubt that's the case in most instances. But it is probably the case in this instance. There should be no US government agency seals on Commons, because their usage is usually heavily restricted (for one thing, you can't use them in a commercial context, which right away is against commons policy). --Fastfission 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Norwegian coats of arms have restrictions on their use in Norway. Yet we have absolutely no problem with keeping Category:Norwegian coats of arms. Basically: if you find an image on the Commons, we guarantee it has a free copyright status, but any other legal restriction is your own lookout. dbenbenn | talk 00:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Marsupilami.jpg

Stamp of copyrighted comic figure --84.133.218.144 09:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Provincia de Mendoza

Not used any more and it exists Category:Mendoza. --ALE! 11:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CIA seal.jpg

Another erroneous case of thinking that just because the work of a government agency is in the public domain, their seal is as well. The use of the CIA seal is restricted by U.S. federal law:

Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal

Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. [6]

Whatever its official copyright situation is (it doesn't sound PD to me), it's certainly not "free" for reuse in the sense it must be required to be to be on Commons. --Fastfission 23:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that copyright is the sense of freedom that the Commons requires. If the image is public domain, it should be kept.

Next: we've discussed this case before. As I pointed out at the time (somewhere in the deletion requests archives), there can be limitations on use that are independent of copyright. For example, although Image:David Benbennick.jpg is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5, I'm pretty sure you'd have to ask my permission before using it in an ad campaign, because of privacy laws. I see no difference between that kind of restriction and the text you quoted above. To put it another way: any image that contains the letters "CIA" would fall under the above restriction in the United States, but obviously the Commons is willing to host pictures that contain those initials. The upshot is that we should care about copyright status, and not other restrictions. dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting and important discussion and I welcome it. Let me just add that if you look through this page you'd find that people often are referring to other laws than copyright law as a reason for deletion, e.g. the deletion requests for Chinese portraits (Aug. 25) or Image:2 women outside in a city 01.jpg (Aug. 30). I think that if WikiCommons should consider all laws that regulate publishing of photos, we'd soon be on a very sticky wicket. Thuresson 01:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved ... by the Central Intelligence Agency. -- It's perfectly legal to publish a book titled "CIA Sucks", and display on the cover the official CIA seal, with a vaguely (but not infringingly) Bart Simpsonish cartoon youngster urinating on it. There is no possibility that a reasonable person might entertain the idea that the book was endorsed by CIA; and the seal is a US Government work, not subject to copyright.

This is in notable contrast to the copyright protection that commercial logos and trademarks enjoy. A similar book titled "Disney Sucks", bearing the Disney logo with the aforementionedish tyke peeing on it would bring instant suit from The Mouse. The grounds are "dilution of trademark" and precedent is well-set. (IANAL!)

No problem with this image on Commons. Potential problem with idiot who puts it on his user page together with the text "I work for the CIA." But that's another problem, and not our problem. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Dilution of a trademark" is a process where a trademark becomes a generic term. "Disney" does not become generic (ie a synonym for "media company") if someone other than Disney refers to them using the logo. -- 3247 19:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a slightly different bit of legalese that applies? What is it? You've shown I'm a fool; now what are you? I don't know the right answer; do you? What's your point? Are you here to help, or to muddy the waters? This discussion is about Image:CIA seal.jpg. Do you think it's a copyvio or not? If so, why? If not, why not? — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a copyright violation. And it's not a violation of the cited US law which disallows "to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency", either. The only real question here is whether it's allowed according to Commons' policy. -- 3247 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will be kept. See also prior discussion. --Avatar 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Burgos.jpg

copyvio? --Shizhao 11:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably -- but why make a special case of it? It will be caught in the next no-tag sweep anyway. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The uploader seem to be a problem user at Spanish Wikipedia. Thuresson 05:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Solarspectrum.jpg

noncommercial, Image:FraunhoferLinesDiagram.jpg should be used. --Saperaud 03:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahellwig tagged this with a note that rightly points out NOAO images are not free; NOAO is not a government entity. But the uploader tagged it as a NASA image, and I don't find the image in question on the NOAO site. So what's the point?

The image in question is superior in quality to the second, noted in comparison. I say we should keep it until somebody can produce an actual link to the image in question that substantiates this new claim of source. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image is taken from en:Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg. Deleted. Thuresson 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chapelle sixtine plafond.jpg, Image:Chapelle sixtine jugement dernier.jpg

Reason: The Vatican Museums have a strict no-photography policy for the Sistine Chapel. These pictures are violations against this policy. --Fb78 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevent. The images are of a piece of art work that is public domain by age. If the photographer, whether or not he violated the local bylaws, releases these under a free licence, then they are suitable for Commons; otherwise, not. Commons licensing policy does not require bylaw non-violation (and should not, lest we become hostage to every random bylaw).

James F. (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if the Vatican Museums decide to sue Wikimedia, we do what? --Fb78 13:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have no grounds to sue Wikimedia. They have grounds to prosecute the photographer, but that really isn't the same thing.

James F. (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They do have grounds to sue Wikimedia if Wikimedia is publishing these images. --Fb78 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. I cannot put this any other way that will make it more apparent. The photos are under copyright, yes - of the photographer, because of the 3D nature of the item taken - but not of the Vatican, because they are 500 years old and are very very very much public domain.

Of course, if the uploader doesn't get around to answering the inquiry we'll have to delete them, but that's because they are untagged rather than that they would be copyvios either way.

James F. (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The art depicted in the photographs is public domain, but the photographs are not perfectly reproductive, and hence not automatically public domain. Image:Chapelle sixtine plafond.jpg is less clear, but in my opinion, the three-dimensionality of the ceiling means even this photo isn't kosher. So delete both unless the photographer releases them under a free license. dbenbenn | talk 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent, though not certain, that the uploader is the photographer. If he so declares, that's the end of it; it's utterly unimportant whether he broke Vatican rules in taking it. The note is on his Talk; he'll reply or not.

Again, I don't see why we're making a special case out of this. No tag is no tag, and if it doesn't get a tag, then it's out, and no need for debate. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making a special case. They were nominated for deletion on erroneous grounds. The fact that they come under another ground is irrelevent to our point. :-)

James F. (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image:Chapelle sixtine jugement dernier.jpg unless uploader specifies a license and clarifies that he is the photographer. Keep Image:Chapelle sixtine plafond.jpg since it's a two-dimensional public domain painting. The Vatican policy doesn't come into play at any point.--Eloquence 20:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as suggested by Eloquence, Thuresson 12:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vatican2.jpg

I doubt that this image is actually in the public domain. Neither here nor in en.wikipedia, any credible source information is given. --Fb78 18:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Klaus Kleinfeld.jpg

"Siemens press photos may only be used for editorial purposes." and in the German translation: "Siemens-Pressebilder dürfen nur für redaktionelle und wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendet werden." (only for editorial and scientific purposes) – Sebari ☢ 22:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to beat this into the ground; obvious copyvio on its face. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jose Genoino

The page Category:Jose Genoino is not being used anymore. A new and better category has been created for the same purpose: Category:José Genoino. --Carlosar 12:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jose Dirceu

The page Category:Jose Dirceu is not being used anymore. A new and better category has been created for the same purpose: Category:José Dirceu. --Carlosar 13:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:M & Emap.jpg

Obvious screencap. --SPUI 22:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded Image:Cross.jpg over it and checking usage. Nothing found so far. Alphax 11:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Laughing-Kookaburra-240.jpg

Copyright violation

Not quite, it's a copy of en:Image:Laughing-Kookaburra-240.jpg which is under a non-free Creative Commons license. Alphax 11:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 05:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Rudolf Steiner images

No source and no license given, presumably copyvios. Steiner died in 1925, but the photographers of these 4 very well known (!) pictures may have lived longer potentially. Even if they were 70 years dead their names have to be given. --:Bdk: 04:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 07:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Siegen Leimbachstadion-Logo Krombacher.jpg

ok sorry, trademarked logos are generally not allowed at commons, replaced by Image:Kreuztal Brauerei Krombacher.jpg --Caterham 10:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 07:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sumo_Wrestling_at_Veddo.jpg

Redundant after re-upload because of wrong file name (new: Image:Sumo_Wrestling_at_Edo.jpg). --Kükator 11:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ambrosius Bosschaert, the Elder 05.jpg

Wrong file name. Sorry. :-) --Valérie75 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the correct name? Please re-upload the picture with the new name first. dbenbenn | talk 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Valérie75 but he/she has chosen not to answer. This photo is used in gallery Ambrosius Bosschaert, the Elder. Thuresson 12:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Iruña Encierro.jpg

I have some doubts as to the author's licensing of this picture. I am fairly certain that a friend showed me this picture on the Net a few years ago, saying that it had been found in the camera of a man who, only seconds after taking this picture, had been run over by this bull, and had not survived it. If so, it would be hard to see this as "self-published". I am, however, perfectly willing to accept the author's statement that (a) he is the person who took this picture, as stated in the licence, and (b) that he has survived this experience. Of course, I hope that this is the case, and am looking forward to his message to this effect. Regards, MartinD 12:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The story that your friend told you is completely false. This picture and some more like this are taken under a wall (a very secure wall), almost always by profesional photographs. I also have doubts about the author's licensing, because I've seen this picture many times for two or three years. But, if he says that he's the author, what can we do? Johnbojaen 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I made a mistake downloading this file here. It is not PD. Please proceed to deletion.

Sorry,

es:User:AlCarlesAlDjinn

AlCarlesAlDjinn 20:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 07:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Johoku sogou park.jpg

this file name is wrong,correct name is Johoku chou park.jpg(already uploaded)sorry. --Kentin 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unknown license 29

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 15:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Obudai.sziget.jpg Image:Oceanside pier II.jpg Image:OctopusBackPersonalised.jpg Image:OctopusBackStandard.jpg Image:OctopusCardBackScanJuntungWu.jpg Image:Odra koło Urazu 2.jpg Image:Oldmemory.jpg Image:Olhaoportugal.jpg Image:Oostende2.jpg Image:Orhy.jpg Image:Origen-hexapla.png Image:Orsanmichele-1.JPG Image:Osasunaescudo.jpg Image:P2P Radio.JPG Image:P3280162.JPG Image:PICT0007.JPG Image:PSLV at Umblical Tower.jpg Image:Pachinko.JPG Image:Panor-antigua.jpg Image:PanteonBelen0121.jpg Image:Panzerfaust.JPG Image:Papal Shoes.jpg Image:Papus.gif Image:Paraty Yuri 20040122 036.jpg Image:Parede.gif Image:Paret branzin.JPG Image:ParisPalaisLuxembourg20050723 2.jpg Image:ParisPalaisLuxembourg20050723 3.jpg Image:ParisPalaisLuxembourg20050723.jpg ~~Image:ParlTriangle.JPG~~ ~~Image:Passeport americain couverture.jpg~~ Image:Passeport francais.jpg Image:Pastis.jpg ~~Image:Pastis1.jpg~~ Image:Pastrana Chapel.jpg Image:Pastrana Guadalajara Spain Panorama.jpg Image:Path-katrina.png Image:Paul Arku.jpg Image:Peat artisanal exploitation.jpg Image:Peat artisanal exploitation2.jpg Image:Pelancura01.jpg Image:Petzl basic.JPG Image:Philippsbourg.jpg Image:Philippsbourg2.jpg Image:Phumzile Mlambo Ngcuka.jpg Image:Physalis ixocarpa purple tomatillo.jpg Image:Picabia Hera 2.JPG Image:Plakathinrichtung.jpg Image:Plano onil.jpg Image:Plant cell structure Italian.png

I was apparently hallucinating when I tagged Image:Passeport americain couverture.jpg as {{No source}}. It's a scan of an American passport, which must therefore be PD-USGov. I've tagged it as such. dbenbenn | talk 16:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Pastis1.jpg is from me. If its not on the imageside, sorry , i forgot . I will license it immadiately. Sorry. --Peng 10:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ParlTriangle.JPG

I have now added the source and copyright info. I took the photo myself and have marked it PD Adz 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 18:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Paganeu1.gif

~~Fake medieval painting created in 1930ies. Painter Lothar Malskat died in 1988. Therefore it is not public domain --Gunter.krebs 11:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Ooops, my error. It is not a fake --Gunter.krebs 12:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Debian logos

..and, consequently...

Template:DOULL

All of these logos are licensed by Debian as so (http://debian.org/logos/):

This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.

They may be "used by anyone to refer to the Debian project", which is not the same as "by anyone, for any purpose". They fit soundly into the {{logo}} copyright tag and are not suitable for Commons.

Consequently, the template also has no place here in its current state. ¦ Reisio 17:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Debian project certainly wants this logo to be free, and intends to make it free eventually. See [7] for a discussion from February on the Debian-legal mailinglist. See also [8], an email from August indicating that one hurdle, transferring the copyright to Debian, has been accomplished.

I don't know how the situation stands currently. Someone should ask debian-legal@lists.debian.org to clarify. dbenbenn | talk 20:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG didn't come from the debian project directly, it's a 'pd' image from [[9]]. Of course, it would probably be considered a derived work in the US because of how simmlar it was, but I get the impression from those in De that the copyright law there is far less willing to consider a work derived if there was no mechnical copying. I don't know what ruleset applies to the commons. Considering how paranoid debian is about including unfree things in the distribution, I would be quite amused if even their orignal logo wasn't free enough to throw on the commons. :) No argument from me if the powers that be want it nixed, though. --Gmaxwell 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The SVG" is undoubtedly from one of the vector images at http://debian.org/logos/ (or possibly what those images are derived from). It's exactly the same.

As dbenbenn has already confirmed, the logos are not free at present. ¦ Reisio 17:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In related news: Debian trademark policy under question (ZDNet) and Debian Questions Trademark Policy (Slashdot). From the sound of it, i'm guessing their trademark policy is becoming stricter. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed openclipart about it... but they insist that it's PD, but thats their problem. :) --Gmaxwell 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images deleted by User:Paddy and myself. Thuresson 10:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stop bug.png and others

It's a combination of an LGPL picture with a GFDL/cc-by-sa-2.5 picture. Unfortunately, the LGPL requires that this modified work be licensed under the LGPL, the GFDL requires it to be under the GFDL, and cc-by-sa-2.5 requires it to be under cc-by-sa-2.5. These requirements are all incompatible, so the picture is technically a copyright violation.

This problem could be solved if User:Silsor, the author of Image:Stop hand.png, would release that picture as cc-by-2.5 or PD-self. dbenbenn | talk 04:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the same issues apply to

dbenbenn | talk 05:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only will need Image:Icono consulta borrar.png and Image:Icono aviso borrar.png. I will delete the others when finishes a survey at es: wikipedia.

I think is an error to license an image with the LGPL license. But I think it is possible to merge a GFDL and a LGPL image to make a GFDL new one. --Sanbec 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stop bug.png and Image:Stop espinoso.png have been deleted yet. I think the other must be keeped, but if you delete it, it will be easy to make replacements. Sanbec ✉ 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:International des Feux Loto-Québec - Argentine.jpg

The Uploader statet "No copyright found...", but when no copyright info was found, the upload in commons is not possible. BLueFiSH ?! 10:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Truppenausweis von towo.png

It's unncessary, it's orphaned, and I'd like to see it removed. :) (my image, anyway.) --towo 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Halde rungenbach 1.jpg

Ooops, gave it the wrong filename - the correct filename is Image:Halde rungenberg 1.jpg and can be found there ...... actually why is commons so superhard to use and doesn't give at least the uploader the rights to rename and delete his files? --Abdull 11:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dark Droid.jpg

It says he created the work and published it under GFDL and Creative Commons... but that's just a black R2-D2. --202.78.91.66 18:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ananas aufgeschnitten.jpg

Furthermore, what is the deal with Template:PD-CAGov, which asserts that works of the State of California are automatically public domain? I can't find any justification for that claim, and the copyright notice I quoted above contradicts it. Do we have to delete the 28 pictures in Category:PD California Government? dbenbenn | talk 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, can't someone make a picture better than that one at home? You can't see anything on it. --Fb78 23:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/agidaid.htm "The photographs in this aid are credited to Vince Arellano and Laurie Smith." // Fred Chess 19:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a new and free photo of a splited pineapple at the category Pineapple. Zimbres, October, 13, 2005

Excellent, old photo replaced with Image:Split ananas.jpg. Thuresson 13:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Worldtravel2006, Worldtravel2006/trans-siberian and other uploads of Zoshi

Articles are not for Commons. Images luck author/source/license information. --EugeneZelenko 01:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (move it to User:Stav/Worldtravel2006) and delete the redirect. Stav and Zoshi have uploaded some useful pictures, for example Image:Burningman 0078.jpg, which earns them the right to keep this journal here on the Commons.
User:Stav has asked here about the deletion, I have replyed there in length. In my oppinion, the images are fine here, while the Journal should go to WikiTravel. It couold be kept here as a subpage of a user page, if it does not grow much more, but WikiTrave would be a place where they could find more people interrested in their project. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If Zoshi chooses to move the journal to WikiTravel, fine, but let's not force him to move. If we do that, he might get fed up and stop providing pictures here. dbenbenn | talk 17:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are being moved to my user page User:Stav/WorldTravel2006 and the images (for now) remain in the commons. I must admit, EugeneZelenko's initial message was a bit scary and seemed to put an authoritarian flavor to this great website. Y'alls guidance and feedback reassures me that Zoshi and I made the right choice to host our small project here (or WikiTravel). Thanks for the help! Stav 04:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Stav moved the articles, so I went ahead and deleted the cross-namespace redirects to User:Stav/WorldTravel2006 and User:Stav/WorldTravel2006/trans-siberian. dbenbenn | talk 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Padangbai Secret Beach Belle 1.jpg

Subject of photo would like this to go away; I'm the uploader and took the picture. — Davenbelle 07:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padangbai

Keep, the person on the photo can not be identified. Thuresson 08:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - there is no urgent need to delete the photo because the woman can't be identified and the photo was released into the PD. On the other hand it's not used anywhere and if the person and the uploader ask to remove the picture, I think we should do so. --Avatar 20:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:PromPerú

This Catégory is empty because : with the {{Template:PromPerú}}, the images are puted into : Category:PromPerú images.
Moreover, I think it isn't a free licence.

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wintu Women circa 1900.jpg

This is a copyvio. Where can I get adminship? Dunc|☺ 20:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. US copyright law applies because the photo was first published on the web site of a California college. According to Commons:Licensing#United States, since the photo isn't anonymous (it's credited to Lily and Grant Towendolly at [10]), and it was published after January 1, 1978, it is copyrighted for 120 years after creation (circa 2020, presumably). dbenbenn | talk 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sildenafil.jpg

The chemical structure of sildenafil is incorrect. There should be an amide in the 7-position. I uploaded an image of the correct structure at Image:Sildenafil Structure.png. ~K 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wiki.png

Image:Wiki.png should be moved to a different name (already re-created at Image:Wiki-commons.png) as it currently is aliasing that name on every wiki project and therefore not allowing local logos on those projects. Tim has already changed the logo location, so it shouldn't break the commons logo, but we should wait about a week before moving it to give time for the caches to update. The logo is now hardcoded so there is no need to protect this specific image. Dori | Talk 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion~~. The sitewide logo is now http://commons.wikimedia.org/images/wiki-commons.png, which is not editable except by developers. It should be restored to what it used to be, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Wiki.png, which is wiki-editable. By the way, I've deleted Image:Wiki-commons.png as an unused thumbnail of Image:Commons-logo-en.png. dbenbenn | talk 18:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, this is keeping other wikis from uploading their logos under this name. Dori | Talk 18:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it. There's a new software feature! You should have said so. Agree with Duesentrieb. dbenbenn | talk 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we must have our logo under a different names than other wikis - they can not upload logos locally otherwise (that's a feature that is supposed to prevent vandalism). But the new location should be in the normal image naspace, so the image can be wiki-edited. When that is the case, I vote to delete Wiki.png, to make room for the local logos. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent delete The upload of local logos is now blocked. Sanbec ✉ 10:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. We are now using Image:Wiki-commons.png. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:BepiColombo.jpg

While this image appears on a NASA web page, it says on the bottom "BepiColombo images courtesy of ESA". The same image also appears on the ESA image gallery [11]. So I assume this image is not in the public domain. --Phrood 09:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't see the right copyright mark as I uploaded the image. --Bricktop 09:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unknown license 30

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 06:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plzen st barthelemy.jpg Image:Pointdelarai.jpg Image:PolanskiIFFKV.jpg Image:Politechnika Lwów holl.jpg Image:Politechnika Lwów klatka schodowa.jpg Image:Pollock Autumn Rhythm.jpg Image:Polyporus Betulinus.jpg Image:Pondivy castle.jpg Image:PontDesArts.jpg Image:Pontivy2.jpg Image:Pope John Paul II Seal.gif Image:Porgyandbess.gif Image:Portugal coa.png Image:Poubelle biohazad (plastique).JPG Image:Poubelle biohazard (verre).JPG Image:Prague Writers Festival.jpg Image:Prefab.jpg Image:Quimpcase2.jpg Image:Quimpercor.jpg Image:RBI QSL-Karte.jpg Image:RFC.jpg Image:RamonMargalef.jpg Image:Randolphscott.jpg Image:Reg y subreg.JPG Image:Researchboat2 300.jpg Image:Rox.png Image:Rutas del comercio nuevo laredo.JPG Image:Rydges Plaza.JPG Image:Sailboat 300.jpg Image:Samoa Briefmarke 1989.jpg Image:Saprissa.png Image:Sardarpatel.jpg Image:Science recherche.png Image:Screen SuSE.jpg Image:Seal of the University of Szeged color.gif Image:Sedesucl.JPG Image:SeineLomoFishEye.jpg Image:SenegaleseSoldiersWWI.jpg Image:Senslerdeutsch Kreis.gif Image:Serbia and montenegro flag large.png Image:Shepard.JPG Image:Siegen Leimbachstadion-Logo Krombacher.jpg Image:Simon Wiesenthal.jpg Image:Singapore City.JPG Image:Sir James Chadwick.jpg Image:Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam 250px.jpeg Image:Soduku ejemplo de trazado.png Image:Soldier unionjack .jpg Image:Sondaż prezydencki CBOS lipiec 2005.JPG Image:Sonnenbad.JPG

Revised and deleted almost all. Saved two or three whit fixed copyright issue. Image:Serbia and montenegro flag large.png is redundant, but used in many Wikipedias. Sanbec ✉ 11:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ejaculation.jpg

Just used to vandalize at the english wiki, its too close to porn to be encyclopedic. -Redwolf24

There's already been some discussion on vthe VP about this: Commons:Village_pump#Ejaculation. I have no strong feelings either way... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm pretty sure that this picture looks disgusting to a large majority of readers. I don't think the subject is disgusting - it could certainly be replaced with a tasteful line drawing that's less repulsive. --Fb78 09:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, "disgusting" and "repulsive" are not really a critera for deletion. To me, the question would be if it could be useful. Richt now, I can't really think of any good use...

Also note that there are a few more like that at Penis - for instance Image:Penis_erection_masturbation_orgasm.jpg -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a use for this image, I'm rather certain we'll find one.

But right now, the image is only used to annoy wikipedia readers. Why is that? Because the trolls know most people will find it disgusting. Therefore, I think general repulsiveness can be a reason for deletion.

Let me put it this way:

We definitely need to have pictures that illustrate "ejaculation", "erection", "erection" and other sexuality topics.
What we don't need are pictures which look like bad amateur porn. They'll put off any ordinary reader and make Wikipedia appear as a forum for exhibitionists. --Fb78 10:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good point -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with that pointed out here and it's poor illustration (perhaps with erythema). --Cosoleto 14:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's a very bad photo, aesthetically speaking, but as far as I can see it's the only single frame shot we have of male ejaculation, which is certainly an act that merits encyclopedic description. I'm also opposed to simply demoting the subject of sexuality to line drawings. Should a better photo of ejaculation be uploaded, I'd be happy with deleting this one. To not turn into an amateur porn site, we can simply make it clear that we have no need for a whole gallery of ejaculations, unless significant and encyclopedic differences are depicted.

We have plenty of photos that can be used for vandalizing; I'm sure some of our photos of diseases are far more shocking than this one. That alone cannot be an argument for deletion. If we have the problem that photos are used out of context, then we should find a technical solution for it; for example, a MediaWiki: page could be used to define context/image combinations, thereby setting the allowed contexts for a photo in a protected space. In all other contexts, the photo would be shown just as a link.--Eloquence 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a feature pretty close to this. If the English Wikipedia doesn't want the picture displayed anywhere, all they have to do it add it to w:MediaWiki:Bad image list. Oh, and keep this bad photo until we have some better ones. dbenbenn | talk 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a better photo uploaded, I could agree to keep. Also note that this image is an orphan, both here and on the enwikipedia. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Only used for vandalism, and in any case a poor illustration. — Dan | Talk 07:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete too pornographic -- Simplicius 15:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allmost all votes such as Simplicius' are germans. They regard the pictures not to be compatibel with the opinion of the so called Düsseldorfer Oberstes Landesgericht (a regional court of justice). We shouldn't let them bother an international project. keep 172.181.106.32 10:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (a swissman)[reply]

Delete Wenn dieses und andere Bilder von den richtigen Stellen gesehen werden, ist hier und anderswo der Teufel los. Das gilt genau so für den rechtlichen Aspekt wie für den Imageschaden. Ich sehe schon die deutsche Bild- Zeitung schreien: Wikipedia verbreitet Pornobilder! Da hilft dann keine Internationaltät mehr und kein Server, der in Florida oder sonst wo steht. --Markus Schweiss 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this and other pictures are seen by interested persons, the devil will be the matter here. That applies exactly the same to the legal aspect as to the image damage. I see already the German Bild-Zeitung crying: Wikipedia spreading Porno-Pics! Then no more internationalty adjustment helps and no server, which is located in Florida or elsewhere.--Markus Schweiss 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The wikipedias prefer drawn illustration -- and rightly so. // Fred Chess 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't really care so much what papers would write about this. but alone based on the complete unaesthetic look of the image it should be deleted. This Richiex seems keen on us seeing him ejaculate. well i'm not definetly not amused :-( Gryffindor 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project" (Main Page). If the picture is alredy used in any Wikimedia project, specify where it is used and keep, otherwise it is out of scope and should be deleted. --NeoUrfahraner 07:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it already, before I puke - why hasn't it been deleted yet, it was put up for vote almost a month ago. An error? -- Horsten 22:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Smith Chart.jpg

It is copy from en:Image:Smith chart.jpg but the picture on en.wp is {{unverified}} and no hope to provide source. See also: en:User talk:Raul654#Request for information of Image:Smith chart.jpg--Pia Carrot 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Venus-venera13-right.jpg

Tagged as PD-NASA but the image is from the Soviet Union's Venera 13 spacecraft. --Evil Monkey 05:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it is from a NASA site, where it not tagged as copyrighted. --Bricktop 05:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PD-NASA is for original work of NASA, so this image (and several others from that mission) are tagged wrong. I find it likely, however, that the images are PD anyway, as they where (presumably) created by an official ageny of the USSR - but it would be good to find out more about this. PD-Soviet does not apply, btw: these images are not old enough for that. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled at the same thing and suspect that NASA simply listened to the Venera radio signal and decoded it by themselves. As data from automatic cameras seem (not sure) to have no copyright NASA could take the raw data they revieved via their radio telescopes and process it and could make these independent recieved data their own property. However I only assume that, so there is now other way but asking the NASA and probably also the Russian Space Agency. I personally have currently no time. Can someone else do this please? Arnomane 00:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an email to NASA regarding this matter. Let's see what they say... Arnomane 02:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Arnomane never received a reply from NASA and it is probable that NASA use the photos by special permission. Thuresson 00:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:L1logo.jpg, Image:L4logo.jpg and Image:L5logo.jpg

Tagged as copyvios but need to be dealt with as quickly as possible as the copyright holder has requested their immediate removal on info-en@. --Ngb 06:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those images are pretty trivial, i'm not convinced they can be copyrighted... But the GFDL claim is wrong in any case.

It would be good to know more about the claim of the "copyright holder" - are those images trademarked? That would (currently) be a reason for deletion.

Oh, and please note that those images are still used on the spanish wikipedia. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Altough I do agree that these images are not copyrightable (and the owner of the site the images are from would not be the copyright holder anyay), they can be recreated with better quality very easily (see Santiago_de_Chile_L1.svg Santiago_de_Chile_L2.svg Santiago_de_Chile_L4.svg Santiago_de_Chile_L4A.svg Santiago_de_Chile_L5.svg). So it's not worth the hassle with the person who made the files. -- 3247 19:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those with access to OTRS, the ticket number is 2005092610006723. Otherwise I'm unprepared for reasons of privacy to reproduce the contents of non-public email, except to note that the owner of the photoblog these images are from *is* the copyright holder (contrary to what 3247 reasonably assumes) -- they are his own approximations to the Santiago line logos (as seen in the original at http://www.metrosantiago.cl/portal/html/metro_linea4/open_mapa.htm). They've clearly been copied from his site, since they're identical right down to the JPEG artificing.

Even if we assume that the logos themselves were elegible for copyright, the small variations made the potoblog owner (which are even less distinct) would not be. The JPEG artifacts are no creative work and thus don't count. Only the creator of the original line logos would have copyright to them. Well, that's only hypothetic, of course, as these images are not copyrightable. -- 3247 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I debated whether these images were copyrightable before following up the request -- in the end I decided that various features of the image such as the rounded corners and the choice of font make it differ enough from a generically reproducible image that it is at least borderline copyrightable. --Ngb 07:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if you argue that the design is distinct enough to be copyrightable, the image will have to be deleted as copyright violations. Note that the designer of the original has rights on any reproductions and (close) aproximations - it does not matter if they where made by scanning or by re-drawing by hand (this is also true for the SVG images metioned above). If the designe is copyrighted, it does not matter where the image comes from - it's a copyvio. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just removed all references to the JPEG versions and marked them as "redundant". Can we just delete them and talk about my SVG versions when (if) the metro autority of Santiago complains? -- 3247 23:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mount Rainier

REASON Articles for Mount Rainier and Mount Rainier National Park exist and suffice, so this category is not needed.--Wsiegmund 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Categories are more useful than unscalable pages with lists of images on them. If you want the page in addition, then keep that, but please don't remove category tags from images which other people find useful. Look at Special:Categories - what is the point of removing this one (when there are at least 20 images that should be in it) when there are thousands of other categories in use? I see no reason not to categorise these images. Angela 12:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MORE BACKGROUND: Stan Shebs tells me that I've inadvertently reopened a topic that has been intensively discussed at Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote. I see little point in people recapitulating that discussion here. However, I'm sure the new insights or ideas would be welcome to all. Angela's scalability argument is an example. I didn't see it in the earlier discussion. Wsiegmund 23:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unknown license 31

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sonnenhoernchen.JPG Image:StLazare.jpg Image:StLouis.jpg Image:StanCentre.jpg Image:Stanislas.jpg Image:Stockholm county.png Image:Straatverlichting.jpg Image:Störe671.jpg Image:Suharto.jpg Image:Swimergy.jpg Image:Swimergy2.jpg Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter2.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter4.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter5.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter6.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter7.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-dom-ter8.JPG Image:Szeged-egyetem-foepulet.JPG Image:Szeged-jog1.JPG Image:Szeged-jog2.JPG Image:Szeged-jog3.JPG Image:Szeged-jog4.JPG Image:Szeged-klebelsberg-emlektabla.JPG Image:Szeged-konzervatorium.JPG Image:Szeged-napja-unnepseg1.jpg Image:Szeged-napja-unnepseg2.jpg Image:Szeged-pantheon.JPG Image:Tabasco.JPG Image:TabbyCat.jpg Image:TagHox1.jpg Image:Tapa sph.jpg Image:Teinturiers.jpg Image:Templeseal.jpg Image:Texas state seal.png Image:Thaer.JPG Image:Thaer2.jpg Image:The Sun.JPG Image:Thor baby 1.jpg Image:Thor baby 2.jpg Image:Toba overview.jpg Image:Toba zoom.jpg Image:Todesmarschmittelbaudora2.jpg Image:Toledo Ohio seal.png Image:Toycvycxsv.gif Image:Toycvycxv.gif Image:Tractor-semitrailer-semitrailer.jpg Image:Tractor-semitrailer-trailer.jpg Image:Trafalgar Submarine.JPG ~~Image:Trans-Siberian-map.jpg~~ Image:Trees on Mont Tendre.jpg

Move Image:Toledo Ohio seal.png to English Wikipedia. Its license (see en:Template:Seal) is fully valid there. (I'd upload it myself, but cannot while this image is still on Commons.) SwissCelt 12:40, 29 September 2005

Yes, you can upload it to English Wikipedia immediately. The article Toledo, Ohio will first look for a local image before looking for the image at WikiCommons. Thuresson 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but while the image is still on the Commons, I receive the following error while attempting to upload: "A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." -- SwissCelt 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me. Anyway, upload it with a different name to en: Thuresson 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But for the record, I object to this use of IfD for the kind of en masse deletion "requests" (maybe we should call them demands?) you've done several times now for nothing more than "copyright" technicalities. This should have been an interwiki (if, indeed, it had to be removed from Commons, which I doubt)... there's absolutely no reason why you should subject editors to this process where it's clear that a good faith effort has been made to adhere to copyright. As I told you with en:Image:Bellefontaine seal.png, there's no copyright issue here. You're making it extremely difficult for people to use this project. -- SwissCelt 11:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Toledo seal can be used freely by anybody for any purpose, it can be kept. If you believe so, just add to the description page why you believe that. I don't know you or anybody of the contributors so I can't say they have made a good faith effort to anything ever. But I can tell if they left a copyright tag and a source who can verify the copyright. And I can also tell that this is not a national flag. Thuresson 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Image:Trans-Siberian-map.jpg on request of the uploader. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Suharto.jpg, I copied it from en.wikipedia [12] where it states "Suharto Indonesian government portrait, public domain". I'd be glad if the image wasn't deleted.

--Ronaldo16 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images tagged or deleted, Thuresson 00:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Csn.png

REASON: It is not the oficial flag of the (CSN) and copyright status not clear. --JorgeGG 14:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARGUMENTS The CSN has not yet decided on the oficial flag. The flag uploaded is from an advocacy group tha seeks the union of south america (see http://www.unionsudamericana.net/) with no relation to the CSN. Also the copyright status is not clear. --JorgeGG 14:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Csn.gif

Same as above --JorgeGG 19:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Royal Standard.gif

Deleted, Thuresson 00:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

LEGO Images

Hi there, the following images contain pictures of LEGO figures. The law department of that company told me via e-mail, that the figures are trademarked at that the could not be allowed for commercial use. Since my internet connection is really messed up right now and I don't know which deletions tags to use, I'd be really thankful, if someone could add them to the images. Thanks in advance, --Flominator 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nonsense! I don't believe the legal department of LEGO, if they say you can't take pictures of legos. Keep unless some neutral authority confirms this crazy claim. dbenbenn | talk 04:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The minifigs are trademarked (as well as the ordinary LEGO bricks and the charachter sequence "LEGO"). The scope of trademarks is quite restriced, so it might not be a big legal problem to Wikimedia. (Well, the real question is whether to allow trademarked images.) On the other hand, the Star Wars and Harry Potter minifigs are probably also subject to copyright. -- 3247 22:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lego logo would clearly be a problem; but (generally) what effect does trademark law have on copyrightable photographs of 3-dimensional objects that are trademarked? --Mairi 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real difference between a logo and a photo of a trademarked object: You can't use the image to label products you sell (if the products and logos are "confusingly similar"). -- 3247 20:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition of "free" inlcudes commercial use, but only the copyright side of the issue. Of course, pictures that are licensed correctly as GFDL or cc-by-sa could, from a copyright point of view, be used commercially. As could a picture of, say, Michael Jackson. The photographer (or copyright owner) couldn't object, if he indeed licensed the photo as such. Michael Jackson, of course, could object, if the Coca Cola company would use the photograph commercially for a marketing campaign. But that has nothing to do with copyright. We cannot grant a right "you can use the images for whatever you want, including personal attacks, terrorism, marketing, you name it". We can only address the copyright side. Same goes for insignia. We can provide the images of coat of arms of a city copyright-free. By that, we don't allow someone to use the image to produce his own writing paper and pretend to be the mayor of that city, and forge a passport or something like that. The same goes for trademarks. Of course, the pictures should be kept. If someone does something unlawful with them that breaks trademark laws, LEGO should sue them. We can only address copyrights. --AndreasPraefcke 14:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could'nt say it better. Thanks to Andreas for this excellent answer. --Historiograf 13:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Flominator has asked me to give a more comprehensive answer. The discussion here was going the wrong way. Andreas is absolutely correct concerning the trademark res. logo/freedom problem, but I would say that some pictures are showing objects which are copyrighted (as has done yet User 3247). The Star wars picture seems to be a derivative work of the Star wars charakters which are clearly copyrighted. Lego has merchandising rights concerning copyright and trademark use. Trademarks are not relevant for us but the copyvio. I am also sure that the Duplo Technik image is also a copyrighted work of Lego. It seems that all pictures are copyvios. Thus delete Historiograf not logged in --172.176.129.241 00:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If that would be true we were forced to delete all images in Automobile, which is Nonsense for example in Category:Audi vehicles because almost all show "a copyrighted work of Audi". --Leopard 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No that's Nonsense. Cars are in Germnany not protected by copyright but by Geschmacksmustergesetz. --Historiograf 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These cars have a Logo ( just like LEGO figures) and the textual mark Audi. I'm sure that they are protected in the same way as Lego products: by trademarks and by copyright (though the orginality may be disputed). What are you trying to say ? That you cannot photograph toys that someone claims to have copyright ? That would enable to delete many pictures with man-made products in Commons. The car collection is just an example. --Leopard 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept, Thuresson 03:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Eki-Kawaramachi.JPG

REASON - Image:KawaramachiEki2005-7.jpg is a much cleaner picture that already exists. -William McDuff 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARGUMENTS --William McDuff 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, deletion requested by uploader. Thuresson 13:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.===Image:Banderabsas.gif===

redundant image of Image:Flag of Buenos Aires (City) in Argentina.gif and has no licence tag --ALE! 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sanbec ✉ 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Man masturbating.jpg

A pornographic content showing sexual action (masturbation, sperma). -- Simplicius 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, folks, please don't tell us this picture is indispensable to the universal image data base that is Wikimedia Commons. --Fb78 13:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Cosoleto 14:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --C.Löser 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (not sure whether i may vote)[reply]

Delete. Illegal content for minors in too many free and democratic countries to be kept on commons (and I do not care what's illegal in Iran or whatever town in Texas, so don't argue with stuff that would have to be deleted if we obeyed their laws). --AndreasPraefcke 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not care what AndreasPraefcke does or does not care about, argument he suggested seems relevant to me. --che 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What article would use them? Maybe your user page ;-) // Fred Chess 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, shlightly too much information. did the user say the image is self-made? eeeugghh... Gryffindor 01:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Alphax 07:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Penis erection masturbation orgasm.jpg

Same reasons as above. -- Simplicius 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Fb78 13:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Cosoleto 14:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --C.Löser 15:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (not sure whether i may vote)[reply]

""Delete"" --[ User:Astroguru 03:45,02 October 2005 (UTC) Picture bears no relation to the theme of the article.An example of weird sense of humour.

all votes above are german. Mine is swiss. Keep 172.181.106.32 10:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, actually two are german and one is italian. --C.Löser 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasons as above. --che 22:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not useful. // Fred Chess 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did the user say the image has been "self-made"? ok, too much information right there... :-( Gryffindor 01:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Alphax 07:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Halde haniel amphiteather 1.jpg

Misspelled German "amphitheater" in the filename. Correct image can be found at Image:Halde haniel amphitheater 1.jpg

Deleted -Sanbec ✉ 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Halde haniel amphiteather 2.jpg

Misspelled German "amphitheater" in the filename. Correct image can be found at Image:Halde haniel amphitheater 2.jpg

Deleted -Sanbec ✉ 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RAG Prosper-Haniel von Halde Haniel.jpg

Double entry, correct image filename can be found at Image:Rag prosper-haniel von halde haniel.jpg

Deleted -Sanbec ✉ 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kalimpongtown2.jpg

I made a mistake and created this image instead of uploading a new version of Image:Kalimpongtown.jpg I have since replaced Image:Kalimpongtown.jpg, so please delete this .

Deleted -Sanbec ✉ 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/09

September 1

Image:Rote armee fraktion logo.png, Image:Schleyer.jpg

Unknown license 27

September 2

Wikimedia logos

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

September 3

some Category:Unknown

Outdated images

September 4

images of User:MacTartan

September 5

September 6

Unknown license 28

All flags uploaded by user Bab83

September 8

September 9

"% articles" - UNdeletion

September 10

September 11

September 13

September 15

September 16

Image:Chapelle sixtine plafond.jpg, Image:Chapelle sixtine jugement dernier.jpg

September 18

September 19

Rudolf Steiner images

September 20

Image:Johoku sogou park.jpg

Unknown license 29

September 21

Debian logos

September 22

Image:Stop bug.png and others

September 23

September 24

Worldtravel2006, Worldtravel2006/trans-siberian and other uploads of Zoshi

September 25

September 26

Unknown license 30

September 27

September 28

Image:L1logo.jpg, Image:L4logo.jpg and Image:L5logo.jpg

September 29

Unknown license 31

LEGO Images

September 30

Navigation menu

Search