Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Photographs of 3D artworks are not free. RockMFR (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could I see precedents towards this decision? We've got some images of Frank Zappa statues, so I'm wondering if this one is only getting scrutiny because its Scientology related. --Lenin and McCarthy (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. To Lenin: yes, there's plenty of precedent for this, both in the courts and (by extension) here. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spelling error --rootology (T) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was created by error - it should have been Category:CB90 & SRC90. --Hebster (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I was inexperienced when I uploaded this image, and I didn't know the actual age of it, so it might not be PD yet. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think we can say with almost total certainty, from the properties of the photograph, that this is more than 50 years old. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Might be. But the reason it looks so worn isn't necessarily that it is very old, I actually took the photo of that picture while it was behind glass (it's not a scan), so the reflection might make it look more faded than it is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking the faded part. I was thinking more about the fact it looks like it was taken with an early plate camera, which look pretty distinctive (very much polarised between black/white with very little in the grey tones, extremely unsharp, etc). But then, I guess there's not really any telling for certain. Where did you take the picture? Is there any chance of contacting the people who own the picture now and asking them? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was a picture which hung on the wall of some people I visited in North Lebanon. Wouldn't be possible to contact them in the immediate future, as I won't be going there for some time, due to the present circumstances. I can always upload it again if I do find out, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking the faded part. I was thinking more about the fact it looks like it was taken with an early plate camera, which look pretty distinctive (very much polarised between black/white with very little in the grey tones, extremely unsharp, etc). But then, I guess there's not really any telling for certain. Where did you take the picture? Is there any chance of contacting the people who own the picture now and asking them? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Might be. But the reason it looks so worn isn't necessarily that it is very old, I actually took the photo of that picture while it was behind glass (it's not a scan), so the reflection might make it look more faded than it is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mmmkay. Deleted then. :/ Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spelling error, see Category:Wall painting on houses in Germany --rootology (T) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Category:Wall painting on houses in Germany. --GeorgHH • talk 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad title --rootology (T) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Category:Fortresses in Italy. --GeorgHH • talk 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copy from http://www.otrevisan.com/ Yanguas (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's not used anywhere and these icon things for the infobox are automaticaly worked on using the coordinates. --rootology (T) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- not all wikis have automatic icons based upon coordinates — Keep. --Kjetil_r 06:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's in use on two projects (please use CheckUsage before claiming that an image is not used anywhere, [1]), and neither of those wikis have automatic coordinate maps for the United Kingdom. Cnyborg (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Appears to still be useful. Rocket000 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Downloaded from http://skycorporation.co.jp/img/jp_100_1.jpg which seems to be a talent agency or something, so I seriously doubt it's the uploader's own work as he states. AnonEMouse (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- See http://skycorporation.co.jp/en_talent.php . Meanwhile, I've been able to convince a Flickr user to put image:Leah Dizon at auto show.jpg under creative-commons-attribution, so we'll have an image of the person. (In fact, I noticed this one, when I was trying to upload that image.) --AnonEMouse (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Source = Jean-Michel Jarre Personal Files - seems unlike this is cc licensed. Megapixie 09:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Source = Jean-Michel Jarre Globetrotter Fanzine - This image was obtained from the Globetrotter Official French Fanzine of Jean Michel Jarre from this website here:http://alnr.chez-alice.fr/toutjarre/biojarreuk.html
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
misprint: Chruch for Church --rootology (T) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
moved to category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the Balearic Islands --rootology (T) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty cat. --rootology (T) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
page blanked by creator and only user. Category replaced by category:economic bar charts --rootology (T) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
category cleared by creator, replaced by category:economic block diagrams --rootology (T) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
category cleared by creator, blank cat--rootology (T) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty cat. --rootology (T) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty cat. --rootology (T) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No longer empty. Rocket000 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
no source Damiens.rf 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of Image:Barbary_Macaque_3082.jpg, which was deleted for improper licensing. Derivative works of copyright violations are copyright violations themselves. --Selket (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I had altered the image so that it is not derived of the deleted one. I don't know how to prevent access to the previous version, but i think deletion is no longer required. The image is in use at some 10 wikipedias. --LP (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that uploader has the authorization to release this photo under GFDL. BrokenSphere 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete No proof of GFDL. In fact one the source image has a copyright notice. Anonymous101 talk 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete unless Commons:OTRS permission from copyright holder is provided. npd template added to image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Westward_Ho!_-_Devon_dot.png&w=_100000){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Team logo, doesn't appear to be free. --rootology (T) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sculpture by Per Ung (b. 1933), still copyrighted. there is only noncommercial FOP in Norway. Kjetil_r 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Non-licensed distribution 203.122.240.136 07:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted character design --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's a normal tank engine with a Thomas face attached. Is that really the same thing? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While no doubt intented to be a reference to en:Thomas the Tank Engine, a photo of an actual locomotive with a round smiling face design attached to the front doesn't seem to be an actual copy of the cartoon design. The smiling face attached seems rather generic as well; unless there is some indication that this type of round face is copyrighted I'd think this one is safe. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image shows an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without objection for more than a month. Other correct structures of lactose exist. Edgar181 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image shows an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without objection for more than a month. Other correct structures of glucopyranose exist. Edgar181 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's no longer needed: file POL gmina Kołbiel COA.svg is better and follows naming convention Curdeius (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal Bio article file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nomination was created as a set, but is a single image. --NauticaShades 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misspelling, empty cat. --rootology (T) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Larger version has been posted - Larger version has been posted: Image:Royal_lotus_wiki_large.jpg Alasdair Forbes (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
wrong name of king :
Deleted. Also no date on statue so no way of knowing if it's free or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image contains an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without objection for more than a month. A corrected replacement, Image:L-DOPA synthesis2.png, has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Edgar181 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused. GeorgHH • talk 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused, apparently personal snapshot of minors. The source indicates that this is self-made, and the existence of metadata seems to back this up, but personality rights concerns as well as scope issues remain. I'm also nominating Image:Dreamgirls2.jpg and Image:Dreamgirls3.JPG for the same reasons (although the latter is apparently taken at a fairly large party, thus reducing the personality rights concerns). --jonny-mt 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Scope and personality rights seem to be issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty. --rootology (T) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
category replaced by Category:Agricultural machine illustrations --rootology (T) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: Empty category or gallery: content was: '{{del|category replaced by Category:Agricultural machine illustrations}}' (and the only contributor was 'Mdd')
page blanked. Category replaced by Category:Agricultural tools illustrations --rootology (T) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000(talk) 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
duplicate --rootology (T) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of what? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Image:JgBtl 531.png seems to be a cropped version of this one. --AVRS (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, this image does not provide more use than the cropped version Image:JgBtl 531.png --Martin H. (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
duplicate --rootology (T) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of what? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The user who originally put in the deletion request did some more of these strange deletion requests stating duplicate with no duplicate linked. Keep --Svens Welt (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is a different version: Image:JgBtl 4.gif. --AVRS (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, this image does not provide more use than the edited version Image:JgBtl 4.gif. --Martin H. (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus. Category:Anisoptera contains many image of better quality. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Too poor quality to be of realistic educational use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No valid proof that PD-Old applies; publication date is not the same as date of author's death. BrokenSphere 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It seems unliekly that the author died two years after image was made. No proof in either image page or source webpage. Anonymous101 talk 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no way to find out who the author was, so I changed the copyright to Anonymous-EU, ok now? --Koroesu (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is text on the lower left corner of the poster that is ineligible due to the size of the image. I would suspect that that may mention authorship. BrokenSphere 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The author is unknown according to the Spanish ministry of culture [2] so we should keep the image. --Koroesu (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous EU. The text is legible on the site of the Spanish ministry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- The author is unknown according to the Spanish ministry of culture [2] so we should keep the image. --Koroesu (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is text on the lower left corner of the poster that is ineligible due to the size of the image. I would suspect that that may mention authorship. BrokenSphere 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. According to this page, the author is anonymous.Trixt (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:World map of countries by gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita in 2006 from the World Bank.png
[edit]
I've got an .svg --rootology (T) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Another incomplete nom, see: Image:World map of countries by gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita in 2007 from the International Monetary Fund.svg Delete rootology (T) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete it as it serves no purpose when we've already got an svg, plus it's not used in the article on GDP any more, because it's outdated. But don't delete the svg. bsrboy (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
But they're different years. ??? Nevermind. Read that too fast. And Keep—it's still used. Rocket000 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- How is it still used? bsrboy (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- You can check that yourself with the checkusage tool, but here. --Hardscarf (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Still used and also raster version Badseed talk 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there's some specific attempt at fraud and deception involved, we don't generally delete images because they're proposed flags, or even fictional flags (see Category:Special or fictional flags etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alors renommer l'image sans qu'elle contient Pays de la loire pour éviter toute ambiguïté et cette image est susceptible d'avoir des droits d'auteur.--Lacivelle (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with AnonMoos. Either an explanation is given in the legend, but a simple deletion is not in order. Gryffindor (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alors renommer l'image sans qu'elle contient Pays de la loire pour éviter toute ambiguïté et cette image est susceptible d'avoir des droits d'auteur.--Lacivelle (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ces explications sur la légende son fausse, les pays de la Loire ont été créés en 1955, trop récent pour avoir un blason, et si cette région avait un blason celui-ci aurait été assujettit à des droits d'auteur tout comme le logo d'Alfa Roméo, laissé cette image sous cette appellation c'est diffuser à des millions d'internaute une image fausse, prière de lire [3], trouvé moi une source provenant directement de l'entité territoriale concernée ? --Lacivelle (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Copyright is not an issue here, blazons are not copyrightable (akin to language), the image is another question but its author seems to have released it in a way compatible with commons.--Caranorn (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The proof on the link with the territorial entity has been made, as you can see a link from the former webpage (before restructuration) of the regional council was published.
- Delete, there is no flag (official or not) for Pays-de-la-Loire or even for Pays de la Loire ! Bad name, probably copyvio of the recent the coat of arm (Image:Blason région fr Pays-de-la-Loire.svg in RFD too). VIGNERON * discut. 08:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- That image was kept -- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blason région fr Pays-de-la-Loire.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cette image est également à supprimer, et dire qu'elle officiel est totalement faux.--Lacivelle (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- That image was kept -- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blason région fr Pays-de-la-Loire.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Blazons are not copyrightable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong ! Recent blazons are copyrightable. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- In more traditional European-based forms of heraldry, where each coat of arms is based on a textual description or "blazon", and many different artistic renderings based on the blazon might be considered acceptable as a version of the arms, then if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms based on the textual blazon, you own the copyright to your particular rendering, and are free to release it under a suitable license to Wikimedia Commons if you choose to do so.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure that recent « blasonnement » (french word for the text of a blazon) is not under copyright even if the author is recent (probably ). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- In more traditional European-based forms of heraldry, where each coat of arms is based on a textual description or "blazon", and many different artistic renderings based on the blazon might be considered acceptable as a version of the arms, then if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms based on the textual blazon, you own the copyright to your particular rendering, and are free to release it under a suitable license to Wikimedia Commons if you choose to do so.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong ! Recent blazons are copyrightable. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As explained in a similar case, this blazon is not in violation of copyright. The text ("Blasonnement") might be in some case, which should be controlled (and even in the case there is a copyright on it, we have to determined if it was done under private work or for the French commission because it doesn't imply the same problem => not covered by same sort of copyright). The previous case that I've seeen raised by Lacivelle we've seen that he was partially wrong and was about the same blazon but in a blazon shape. Dionysostom (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As written on fr:Wikipédia:Légifer: "pratiquement tous les blasons récents utilisés sur Commons (99.xx%) ont du type "armes officielles de collectivité". De ce fait, le texte qui les a rendues "armes officielles" est nécessairement une décision administrative officielle (sinon c'est pas officiel, mais de fantaisie...), et ces décisions ne sont jamais soumises à droit d'auteur (parce qu'il faut que l'on puisse les reproduire librement, justement). Du coup, le blason (description verbal) est libre de droit d'auteur (mais non reproductible n'importe comment, on ne peut pas par exemple se l'attribuer), et les armoiries qui s'en déduisent ne sont pas des "oeuvres dérivées"." = insofar as it is a real official coat of arms, it is free of rights. The question may be indeed: is it official (free of right) or fantasy (subject to rights...)? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Project_scope : Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose, Commons:FAQ : any freely licensed media file that is useful for any Wikimedia project can be uploaded, while en:Wikipedia:Verifiability explains clearly that unverifiable contents are not useful on Wikipedia. As soon as the uploader can provide verifiable sources showing that the content is suitable for display in wikipedia articles, the file can be undeleted again. But for now, as no justification is provided, as regards to the fact that this flag has some notability in the territory for which it is meant, I think it is better to delete the file, as we would do for any private party photo or self-created artwork. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- For your concern Teofilo the notability of this flag has been proved : It was formerly used by the Regional Council as you can see in this archive : [4] Dionysostom (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is a page on archive.org, meaning that it has been discarded since that time (april 2001). On this 2001 archive web page, I read : En 1984, le baron Pinoteau, (...) établit une note sur un projet d'écu : In 1984, baron Pinoteau wrote a note on a draft coat of arms. So this is merely a draft. Do we really need to display a draft on Wikipedia ? Is it relevant ? Teofilo (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This link only shows you that it was indeed promoted by the officials (beeing on the website). In addition, you can see that this same blazon was used on some elements (look at the link provided on embleme.free.fr [5]) showing one of several use of this blazon). If you add all the proofs of past uses, you can admit some notability contrary from what you said... It's just for showing people it s not a blazon that has no recognition... It just shows you that the region doesn't want anymore to promote their image through this blazon but through an unique image the logo of the Regional Council which does represent the Regional council but doesn't clearly represent the region... Dionysostom (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- No ! This is not the flag but just the blazon. There is no proof that there was a flag (not officially, or just for Pays de la Loire and not Pays-de-la-Loire, or just historical). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that from any blazon you can make a flag. So if the blazon has been once used by the officials, the flag has to be considered as a possible flag for the Region (made from the blazon), I didn't say that the flag is official : it s just one of many possibilities offered to the Region. Perhaps in 10 years, the current logo of the Region will no longer be in used because it will not be considered as a logo that the new administration want to promote, and an other will be created, the blazon was made to embrace all the specificities of the region in history, this one might not be the better solution but it is one offered by former heraldist. The flag has nothing official, but he surely is more pertinent than a logo that will change depending on the administration and the politics... So I'm going to say : keep the image but name it a bit more correctly since there is no reason to remove it from a copyright point of view Dionysostom (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is a page on archive.org, meaning that it has been discarded since that time (april 2001). On this 2001 archive web page, I read : En 1984, le baron Pinoteau, (...) établit une note sur un projet d'écu : In 1984, baron Pinoteau wrote a note on a draft coat of arms. So this is merely a draft. Do we really need to display a draft on Wikipedia ? Is it relevant ? Teofilo (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- For your concern Teofilo the notability of this flag has been proved : It was formerly used by the Regional Council as you can see in this archive : [4] Dionysostom (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
![[5]](http://emblemes.free.fr/images-pay/photo-pays1.JPG){kind=link}
- I agree with Vigneron. By the way, baron Pinoteau's draft is "léopard passant d'or" (golden horizontal leopard) and here we have a silver vertical lion. So even if baron Pinoteau's draft was useful for Wikipedia, Image:Pays-de-la-Loire flag.svg and its companion Image:Blason région fr Pays-de-la-Loire.svg are not Mr Pinoteau's draft, but something else. So what I earlier said still applies : no justification is provided, as regards to the fact that this flag has some notability in the territory for which it is meant. See fr:Lion (héraldique) for the difference between lion and leopard, and between "passant" and "rampant". The insigna on the train is interesting, but wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to provide a photography of a train rather than a SVG drawing ? (if we think that such a picture is useful on a Wikipedia article on trains) Teofilo (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The train insigna has two differences with baron Pinoteau's draft : en:Ermine (heraldry) is made of black spots, while the spots on the upper part of the train picture are brown. And the train's lion is "rampant" (vertical) while baron Pinoteau's draft wants it to be "passant" (horizontal), and a leopard (not a lion). Teofilo (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Français : *Tu* peux faire un drapeau à partir du blason mais ce ne sera pas le drapeau. Le plus gros problème de cette image, c’est son nom ! Ce n’est pas le drapeau des Pays-de-la-Loire (et surtout pas des pays de la Loire), c’est un drapeau de la région Pays-de-la-Loire (et plus précisément un drapeau adapté d’un blason méconnu). La première chose à faire est de trouver des sources : qui l’utilise ? quand ? qui l’a crée ? Quid de la 33e Division Militaire Territoriale Région Pays de la Loire ?
- English: *You* can make a flag from the blazon but it will not be the flag. This image biggest problem is its name! It’s not the Pays-de-la-Loire flag (or surely not the Pays de la Loire flag), it’s a flag of Pays-de-la-Loire (and more precisely a flag adapted from a unknown blazon. The first thing to do is to find references : who use it? when? who created it? wot about the 33rd Military Territorial Division of the Region Pays de la Loire?
- Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The train insigna has two differences with baron Pinoteau's draft : en:Ermine (heraldry) is made of black spots, while the spots on the upper part of the train picture are brown. And the train's lion is "rampant" (vertical) while baron Pinoteau's draft wants it to be "passant" (horizontal), and a leopard (not a lion). Teofilo (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Vigneron. By the way, baron Pinoteau's draft is "léopard passant d'or" (golden horizontal leopard) and here we have a silver vertical lion. So even if baron Pinoteau's draft was useful for Wikipedia, Image:Pays-de-la-Loire flag.svg and its companion Image:Blason région fr Pays-de-la-Loire.svg are not Mr Pinoteau's draft, but something else. So what I earlier said still applies : no justification is provided, as regards to the fact that this flag has some notability in the territory for which it is meant. See fr:Lion (héraldique) for the difference between lion and leopard, and between "passant" and "rampant". The insigna on the train is interesting, but wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to provide a photography of a train rather than a SVG drawing ? (if we think that such a picture is useful on a Wikipedia article on trains) Teofilo (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- http://flickr.com/photos/luc/244118818/ is a picture of the building of the Pays de la Loire council (Hôtel de Région) : several flags are on display, but not this one. Teofilo (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I ld say as a conclusion that nothing is provable since it's legit because of inheritance :) But the best way to name it isn't the one that is used here. So we should suggest instead of removing it : reimporting it in an other name, that indicate that is based on Pays de la Loire's blason which is himself no longer used by officials (and never has been declared official), and we should look if there was not an error in the blazon when the author of the drawing recreate it. As we can see the problem isn't the picture in itself : it's the way it was named. Dionysostom (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is NO flag for the Pays-de-la-Loire / Il n'y a PAS de drapeau pou~r les Pays de la Loire Rhadamante (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- read this information before saying there was no flag with the former blason (extract from a text dating from 1999) "The flags which are flying (1999) in front of the Regional Council of the Pays de la Loire are banners of arms of the Regions. The logotyped flag is used inside the building." This shows how people tend to forget things that are only 9 years old... And it seems that the error was made by the Regional council page on the gold leopard : since it inherits partly from former province Maine it should be a Silver Lion so this draw was well made. Dionysostom (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- For your information the logotyped flag has change 3 times since 1995... Dionysostom (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The web archive page says it inherits from the coat of Laval, therefore a gold leopard. It is consistent with Image:Blason ville fr Laval (Mayenne).svg. Teofilo (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I was taking from an other explanation which says that since the Blazon of Anjou and the one from Maine were really similar, the left part of the blazon was from Maine and Anjou at the same time :) (the main difference is the silver lion on Maine Blazon). I would say it seems to me more logical to put the Silver lion, and since we see sort of a mistake on the picture drawn on the train, it shows that there is a conflict of interpretation somehow. But the basic of the "Blasonnement" is here. It would be nice to recover an old flag from the Regional council. But I m stupid, I know someone high enough in the RC to answer me quite quickly :p (it wont be official but I m sure I would have a complete answer) Dionysostom (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The file should have an explanation instead of being deleted in that case, there are plenty of files of flags that are not official and they don't get deleted either, regardless what the discussion is on the French Wiki. Gryffindor (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of being official or not official. It is a matter of being relevant or not. The flag of the USSR, although it is no longer the official flag of Russia, is still relevant because it is useful in an article on the history of Russia/USSR. But I believe that flags which are both unofficial and irrelevant are not kept here on Commons, as a consequence of Commons:Project_scope. Teofilo (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The file should have an explanation instead of being deleted in that case, there are plenty of files of flags that are not official and they don't get deleted either, regardless what the discussion is on the French Wiki. Gryffindor (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I was taking from an other explanation which says that since the Blazon of Anjou and the one from Maine were really similar, the left part of the blazon was from Maine and Anjou at the same time :) (the main difference is the silver lion on Maine Blazon). I would say it seems to me more logical to put the Silver lion, and since we see sort of a mistake on the picture drawn on the train, it shows that there is a conflict of interpretation somehow. But the basic of the "Blasonnement" is here. It would be nice to recover an old flag from the Regional council. But I m stupid, I know someone high enough in the RC to answer me quite quickly :p (it wont be official but I m sure I would have a complete answer) Dionysostom (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The web archive page says it inherits from the coat of Laval, therefore a gold leopard. It is consistent with Image:Blason ville fr Laval (Mayenne).svg. Teofilo (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept. Most of the argument is about whether this is official/real/relevant or not. Please read COM:NPOV, especially the flag example. It is heavily in use (hundreds of pages). MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
copy from Flickr [6], with template {{Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}--Caulfield 14:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No COM:FOP in USA for murals. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted murals (see notice in lower left of first image nominated); US law doesn't allow for free photography of copyrighted public two-dimensional artwork, and copying of mural is not de minimis -Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative works. Photos are clearly of recent murals the copyright for which remains with the artists, Image:Balmy Alley Mission SF2.jpg even has a visible copyright notice on it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty cat. --rootology (T) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It has been filled (4) since. According to [7] there are 18 species of Alcantarea. Therefore, it might make sense to have species cats. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh, crap, I missed this one. I've been trying to clean up the incomplete deletion requests and brain farted here. rootology (T) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh, crap, I missed this one. I've been trying to clean up the incomplete deletion requests and brain farted here. rootology (T) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved/closed. rootology (T) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)