Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted TV screen capture. --Vantey (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Copyright violation.--KENPEI (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. →Nagy 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Useless image: it is only text. --Duch.seb (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know what you're seeing, but it won't even open for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Corrupt file. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Repaired Julo (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Julo (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
marked copyrighted on source page, no indication of free licensing etc Mangostar (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless some evidence of free license is provided; I see none at the linked source. Note: also applies to File:Y-Haplogroups-1500AD-World-Map.GIF, same other than format. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW. Logo of IE. sугсго 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC) sугсго 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it is "own work" Avron (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low Quality, Use not stated, likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
copyvio Tekstman (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the English Wikipedia. Orphaned is not a deletion reason, nor does use need to be stated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Sfu: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Casablanca_Ad_Poster_small_.jpg
Duplicate of File:Uureg Nuur.jpg under an incorrect name. Note that the description given by the NASA source page is mistaken, this is NOT Uvs Nuur (easily verifiable, explained in the description of the other version). This image has been deleted several times already under an incorrect name, and as long as NASA doesn't fix their stuff, we'll probably have to do so again and again. Latebird (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I admit my fault by oversight. --Minor edit (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
out of scope sfu (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, out of project scope. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy, and there is no sourcing for the images- I doubt these are the uploader's own work anyway. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, this statue was unveiled in 1967 so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Add some images then! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just add some more images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 17:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I added an image, please add some more. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I added an image, keep on adding. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The archive the uploader got the image from claims exclusive copyright on the basis of simply owning a copy of the image (see below). Even if similar cases of copyfraud are abundant, mere possession of a copy does not at all put the archive in a position to re-licence this image --Wikipeder (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The Bircher-Benner archive gave us the rights to use the pictures. They signed a statement that we can use those pictures freely. The archive took over the material from the heirs and the clinic. They don't know the author because probably it is not written on the photo and they could not figure it out. This is not unusual for archive material. The pictures were made in the beginning of last century (1910/20) I would strongly Wikipedia to use the pictures, because they add a value to the article about Bircher-Benner. The portrait for example was not available before and the scan was made from the original. Bircher-Benner died 1939 and his works are now in the public domain. Bircher-Benner Archive: http://www.mhiz.uzh.ch/projects/Bircher_Benner.html (boosdatalk) 9:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The reason nominated for deletion is wrong and the nominator should have worked more carefully. The archive does not only store the copy of this image. It is the Bircher Benner Archive holding the copies of the Bircher Benner Magazines, books and pictures. It is the purpose of the archive to manage the intellectual property of Mr. Bircher-Benner. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- ?!? You yourself suggested to nominate the file for deletion.
- The problem is that there is not the slightest proof that the image actually is part of the intellectual property of Mr. Bircher-Benner. The archive doesn't even know the name of the author from whom it claims to have inherited the copyright. Secondly, the purpose of the archive does not interest us, it is its right to re-licence of the lack thereof. --Wikipeder (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As the image was published more then 70 years ago and the author is unknown, we can additionaly assume that it is in the public domain according to swiss copyright law. Btw: What are the reason to believe that an archive did not act correctly? Are those not just prejudices and why don't you act according to the principle of good faith and trust them? (boosdatalk) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I believe that the archive acts in good faith. But obviously there is something very strange if you claim to have obtained exclusive copyright by somebody whose name you don't even know. Normally the transfer of exclusive rights is a formal act and certainly put down on paper, with names and all. I must have seen dozens of similar cases where archives "licensed" images without having the slightest rights to do so. Many people — and many archives, too — unfortunately believe that ownership of an image includes ownership of image rights or even of the exlusive image rights. Good faith these people may have, but their "licences" are not valid all the same.
- Anyway, we should have images here we can trust to be free to use, and not images that possibly are free to use under some theoretical improbability ("maybe the archive somehow got exclusive copyright even though it doesn't know why and by whom"). -Wikipeder (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}}, copyright claim from the archive is not valid, but as even they don't know the author, he is not known. Kameraad Pjotr 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The archive the uploader got the image from claims exclusive copyright on the basis of simply owning a copy of the image (see below). Even if similar cases of copyfraud are abundant, mere possession of a copy does not at all put the archive in a position to re-licence this image. On the other hand, there is no proof at all that the image has been authored by Bircher Benner himself, i. e. that it is in the public domain. --Wikipeder (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Again we asked the archive and the provided us a signed confirmation that we can use the picture under my selected license. The magazine was made by Maximilian Bircher-Benner and he is the main author in this issue. Bircher-Benner died in 1939 and his works are in the public domain. Because it is not entirely clear, who did the drawing no author was mentionned. Wendepunkt was the magazine done by M. Bircher-Benner to advertise and discuss his views. The picture should stay on Wikipedia. Thanks. boosda (talk) 9:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep The reason nominated for deletion is wrong and the nominator should have worked more carefully. The archive does not only store the copy of this image. It is the Bircher Benner Archive holding the copies of the Bircher Benner Magazines, books and pictures. It is the purpose of the archive to manage the intellectual property of Mr. Bircher-Benner and his employees. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- ?!? You yourself suggested to nominate the file for deletion.
- The problem is that there is not the slightest proof that the image actually is part of the intellectual property of Mr. Bircher-Benner. All we know is that it appeared on the cover of a magazine he edited. Secondly, the purpose of the archive does not interest us, it is its right to re-licence of the lack thereof. --Wikipeder (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would understand the above mentionned positing differently. He asked you to stick to the rules on how to make a deletion request and not just remove the license from the page. Do you know that we are talking about images and covers between 1900-33? Why do you assume this archive does not have the proper rights? (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's what you are implicitly telling us: „Because it is not entirely clear, who did the drawing no author was mentionned.“ If the archive doesn't know the author, it is very hard to argue the archive nevertheless holds the unknown author's exclusive rights to the image. As I said on my talk page, cases of archives claiming exclusive copyright for material they simply hold are abundant. See also Copyfraud, third bullet. --Wikipeder (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would understand the above mentionned positing differently. He asked you to stick to the rules on how to make a deletion request and not just remove the license from the page. Do you know that we are talking about images and covers between 1900-33? Why do you assume this archive does not have the proper rights? (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I now looked up the Swiss Copyrigt Law and would like to provide you with another argument for keeping the image on Wikipedia. We can assume that the creator of the cover was most likely in Switzerland or Swiss and did it for Mr Bircher-Benner. According to [Art 31 Swiss Copyright Law ] works with unknown authorship fall into the public domain 70 years after their publication. This work was published 1933 and therefore is in the public domain in Switzerland since 2003. (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here the full argumentation why the image is in the Public Domain:
- Applicable law: According to Commons:Licensing Swiss and US copyright apply for this Swiss work.
- Swiss Situation
- If Maximilian Oskar Bircher-Benner is considered the author the image is free because of the 70 y post mortem auctoris rule (Art. 29 URG).
- If the work is considered anonymous it's still in the Public Domain because of Art. 31 URG as mentioned above already.
- US situation
- If Maximilian Oskar Bircher-Benner is considered the author of the image we have a OTRS ticket of his archive releasing it into the Public Domain.
- According to our own policy anonymous works created before 1989 are not protected since you had to register your copyright. This is for the case the work was also published in the US (which I do not assume).
- One might argue that the copyright for this image got restored in the URAA. In that case the four point test applies. We answer question #1 to 3 with yes The work is probably in the public domain in the United States. To make this shure we jump to subsisting copyrights and the corresponding Three-point test. I think we can safely assume this work has never been renewed copyright in the US since there is no entry for “Wendepunkt” or the “Bircher” in the database of renewed copyrights and the swiss nature of this work. Our own guideline tells us: Anything published before January 1, 1964 and not renewed is in the public domain. Therefore we answer test question #1 with yes, the image is in the Public Domain.
- Swiss Situation
Regards --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- And why then would the archive claim to hold copyright? Suspected copyfraud may be an argument for not accepting pictures, but should not be for accepting them. We need to be sure our images are free to use (and not only in the US. With the licences suggested e. g. the image will have to be removed in the German WP). --Wikipeder (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Wikipeder, I assume that you have access to the OTRS document and I don't think that their text would allow you to say that they did a copyfraud. As already stated before, the picture is free to use according to Swiss law and all those pictures were taken in Switzerland.boosda (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's just what I mean. I don't see how we can consider it proven that the archive unlawfully claimed copyright for this image — which is what we are saying if we claim the image were PD in Switzerland. --Wikipeder (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please be careful with severe accusations like copyfraud. Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. This is shure not the case here. The license the archive gave may be useful for jurisdictions other than the Swiss and the US. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
- Dear Wikipeder, I assume that you have access to the OTRS document and I don't think that their text would allow you to say that they did a copyfraud. As already stated before, the picture is free to use according to Swiss law and all those pictures were taken in Switzerland.boosda (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, copyright for the cover of his own magazine rests with the archive, PD because of age (70+pma). Kameraad Pjotr 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The archive the uploader got the image from claims exclusive copyright on the basis of simply owning a copy of the image (see below). Even if similar cases of copyfraud are abundant, mere possession of a copy does not at all put the archive in a position to re-licence this image --Wikipeder (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
KeepThe Bircher-Benner archive gave us the rights to use the pictures. They signed a statement that we can use those pictures freely. The archive took over the material from the heirs and the clinic. They don't know the author because probably it is not written on the photo and they could not figure it out. This is not unusual for archive material. The pictures were made in the beginning of last century (1910/20) I would strongly Wikipedia to use the pictures, because they add a value to the article about Bircher-Benner. The portrait for example was not available before and the scan was made from the original. Bircher-Benner died 1939 and his works are now in the public domain.
Bircher-Benner Archive: http://www.mhiz.uzh.ch/projects/Bircher_Benner.html
(boosdatalk) 9:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked up the Swiss Copyrigt Law and would like to provide you with another argument for keeping the image on Wikipedia. We can assume that the creator of the cover was most likely in Switzerland or Swiss and did it for Mr Bircher-Benner. According to [Art 31 Swiss Copyright Law ] works with unknown authorship fall into the public domain 70 years after their publication. This work was published 1933 and therefore is in the public domain in Switzerland since 2003. (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}}; copyright claim of the archive is invalid, but as they don't know the author, he is not known. Kameraad Pjotr 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with a single file. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery with no files. No real reason retain. --FASTILY (TALK) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Zwierzyniec. Kameraad Pjotr 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
no source, author, date, etc Mangostar (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable source/author information, no permission: clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
suspicious super-high-res publicity photo of leader of kuwait... user's only contribution ever Mangostar (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete likely copvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks source information, no permission, bogus licensing. Kameraad Pjotr 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
When did Alan Bromavić (photographer) died? Eusebius (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the uploader just added the fact that Bromavić died in 1926 to the image description.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I meant that to be vk, but on second thought, given the lack of a clear source link, and the fact that the source doesn't give good information on the images I did find, and the overall concerning nature of the uploads as a whole of this user, the whole things leaves me serious concerns.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, photo from 1927, author died in 1926: bogus licensing and no source information. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Anna died in 1971; Author is unknown, date is unknown, PD-Old tag doesn't work. Someone deleted the sdelete, but I still believe this is worth a speedy. Prosfilaes (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment This is a different photo than the earlier one of the same name previously deleted. Agree that there is at present insufficient evidence to show the claimed license tag. Is more information about the photo, date, photographer, ot publication availible? Infrogmation (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)- Comment I do not understand the previous deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The date of the photograph is around 1898 when Princess Anna was in her early twenties before her marriage. She died in in 1971 when she was almost a hundred years old.--Miguelemejia (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- For one, we have no evidence that it's from 1898. Two, it doesn't really matter; her photographer could have lived as long as she did, which would leave forty years of EU copyright on this picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well, they are not in the EU, but just change the license to {{PD-anon-70}} or {{PD-anon-1923}} or something similar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since it was copied from the web, we don't even know if the book given as source gives a photograph. There's no evidence this is anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Source is fine: "The Montenegrin royal marriages (From the Royal palace albums)" by Milan Jovicevic. If the book and the albums do not give a photographer, that is good enough for anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since it was copied from the web, we don't even know if the book given as source gives a photograph. There's no evidence this is anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - Jcb (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that the photograph is from 1910. Eusebius (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Why? w:Color photography shows that it's not inconcievable for it to come from that era. My concern is that it comes from [1], which does not say 1910 or any date. Where the information in the file description is coming from, I don't know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader earlier (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Anna of Montenegro.jpg) made bogus licensing claims, deleting per Precautionary principle. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploader is almost certainly not the photographer and is thus not qualified to license the image under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. —Angr 09:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's my fault, I wanted to lag "pd-old". I think it's ok now.--Symane (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It still needs source information to show that the PD-old tag is accurate. Was it published in the U.S. before 1923? Was it created in France by someone who died by 1939? —Angr 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete No date, no author, no source, no way to derive PD status. --Eusebius (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, without date of first publication unable to confirm PD-status. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Failed picture, update uploaded. MrGulli (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as a duplicate of File:KB Iceland.svg. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyrighted character. Eusebius (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, missing permission/source, possible copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation and lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyrighted character. Eusebius (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, missing permission/source, possible copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation & lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This file is wrong: the upper division is not a paly, because a paly should have an even number of stripes. So this file has no didactic purpose. It is not used. --BrightRaven (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, Bright Raven (shall that be translated to Berth-Rand?) This is precisely the point : the upper division is a paly with an uneven number of stripes, to illustrate the graphic difference between the paly (where all stripes are of equal width) and the pale (the red stripes are a bit wider, and the white border is a bit wider as well). There is no way to show that difference with a classical paly and its even number of stripes. Furthermore, the file is used - precisely in a didactic discussion page, that was the point of its creation. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is only one difference between a paly shield and a shield charged with pales. In a paly, there is an even number of stripes, whereas in a shield charged with pales, there is an odd number of stripes. Please check en:Variation of the field#Barry, Paly, Bendy or in French fr:Champ rebattu#Pièces et partitions. There is no difference between paly and pales concerning the width of the stripes. So this is why this image has no didactic purpose: it shows a difference that simply does not exist. (The right blazon for this file should be: "party per fess, first argent three pallets gules, second argent three pallets gules".) I understand that this image was used to make a point in a discussion, but the point was wrong. BrightRaven (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope: educational use is to show the difference between paly and pale. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a pure non-sense: the difference between paly and pales is not the width of the stripes, but the number (odd or even) of the stripes. Something like "paly of seven" does not exist, only paly of four, six, eight, ten, twelve exist. BrightRaven (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculpture unveiled in 2003 so not PD yet. -A333 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in Finland for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio Tekstman (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright notice, and the copyright on the paper doesn't cover the advertisements in US copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Prosfilaes, PD-US-no notice. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyvio Tekstman (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio of KRO, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Images of 時代あひら
[edit]
Fairuse. Author-unknown internet files. Uploaded by 時代あひら (talk · contributions · Statistics). --Vantey (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Images of Paju statue
[edit]- File:Church of Cross in the evening in Lahti of Finland.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Paju statue by Olavi Lanu in Lahti of Finland.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Church of Cross in Lahti of Finland.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Olavi Lanu still living so not PD yet. A333 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the first and the third (photos of a building). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept third picture, could be argued to be a photo of the building, the other one is clearly not. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Images of sand sculptures in Turku
[edit]- File:Turku - sand sculpture - 4.jpg
- File:Turku - sand sculpture - 2.jpg
- File:Turku - sand sculpture - 1.jpg
- File:Turku - sand sculpture - 5.jpg
- File:Turku - sand sculpture - 3.jpg
FOP in Finland for buildings only. --A333 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in Finland for buildings. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)