Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Фото из интернета. Загрузивший его участник не является владельцем авторских прав Zimin.V.G. (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
'Deleted by Justass: File page without media: content was: 'Автор согласен {{no license|month=March|day=24|year=2010}}
Where does the illustation come from? If it is from 1942, it's not in the public domain. Eusebius (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming French copyright laws are the same as those in the United States (70 years), then this file would be PD eligible in two years time. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- PD already, found it: Louis-Léopold Boilly (1761-1845), Le baume d'acier. --Eusebius (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
author UFC 98 (?), taken from blogspot.com, single purpose account ... --83.79.47.233 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Photo by Al Bello, Zuffa LLC / Getty Images -Justass (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
wrong filename, another file with the same contens has the right name File:Podvečer tvá čeládka (BZ 457) 001.ogg --Kychot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Incorrectly named: File:Podvečer tvá čeládka (BZ 457) 001.ogg -- Common Good (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The artist Max Weiler died 2001. We have to wait 61 years. Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Innsbruck is in Austria and Austria has Freedom of Panorama also in the interior of buildings. (See COM:FOP#Austria). --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)- Keep Panoramafotos in Buildings are in Austria allowed. → Panoramafreiheit#Österreich --Steindy (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed, that the law in Austria allows more uses. I withdraw the request. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete
- I disagree. There is no phrase in the law that says that it applies only to works of architecture. A painting is certainly a "Werk der bildenden Kunst" (en:Visual Arts). The only limitation the law implies is that one must not create an exact copy of the original (i.e creating another mural from it). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Austrian case law says that interior photos of architecture are ok because buildings are permanently situated in public space. That does not mean that the interior of any building is a public place. There is a difference between a home, a factory, a school, a church, or a railway station. Does a church count as a public place in Austrian law? Only when that can be shown, this image can be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, this is the important point. A quick search showed that churches are probably not considered public places [1] (a thing I don't really agree with, but anyway), but I haven't found a rationale or a court decision on it yet. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- You found what looks like a very good source for Austrian copyright, and it gives two legal references for saying that theaters, churches, and museums are not public places in the sense of copyright law. However, the link also says that stained glass windows are considered a part of the building: Glasfenster und auch an ihnen ausgeführte Werke der Glasmalerei sind Bestandteil eines Bauwerks. Sie können als Bestandteil des Bauwerks deshalb auch isoliert wiedergegeben werden. It seems to me that one can argue that the same is true for the fresque. Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Good point on your side, this time. One small issue which might be relevant: Glass windows can be seen (and pictured) from the outside, this fresko cannot. (Although taking a good picture of a glass window from the outside is next-to-impossible, so they probably really accept them being photographed from the inside) --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- You found what looks like a very good source for Austrian copyright, and it gives two legal references for saying that theaters, churches, and museums are not public places in the sense of copyright law. However, the link also says that stained glass windows are considered a part of the building: Glasfenster und auch an ihnen ausgeführte Werke der Glasmalerei sind Bestandteil eines Bauwerks. Sie können als Bestandteil des Bauwerks deshalb auch isoliert wiedergegeben werden. It seems to me that one can argue that the same is true for the fresque.
- You're right, this is the important point. A quick search showed that churches are probably not considered public places [1] (a thing I don't really agree with, but anyway), but I haven't found a rationale or a court decision on it yet. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Austrian case law says that interior photos of architecture are ok because buildings are permanently situated in public space. That does not mean that the interior of any building is a public place. There is a difference between a home, a factory, a school, a church, or a railway station. Does a church count as a public place in Austrian law? Only when that can be shown, this image can be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is no phrase in the law that says that it applies only to works of architecture. A painting is certainly a "Werk der bildenden Kunst" (en:Visual Arts). The only limitation the law implies is that one must not create an exact copy of the original (i.e creating another mural from it). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Werke der bildenden Kunst: Werke der bildenden Künste sind dann von der freien Werknutzung erfasst, wenn dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden. Ein öffentlicher Ort meint dem öffentlich Verkehr dienende Orte, etwa Plätze, Straßen, Parks und Friedhöfe. Zu unterscheiden ist dies von bloß öffentlich zugänglichen Orten wie Kirchen, Museen, Theater oder Galerien. Dieses Werk befindet sich aber nicht an einen öffentlichen, sondern nur öffentlich zugänglichen Ort . Nochmals: Österreichische Rechtsauffassung --Artmax (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Das scheint aber umstritten zu sein. Entspricht das von dir verlinkte tatsächlich der allgemeinen österreichischen Rechtsauffassung oder ist das nur eine Meinung dazu? Das wäre ein ziemlich grosser Unterschied. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, this fresque seems to be a part of the building in Austrian jurisprudence. Kameraad Pjotr 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
E.O. Hoppé died 1972, this image not fulfills the selected {{Pd-old}}. Martin H. (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is impossible, for project reasons. As we all know, people who create artworks between 1900 and 1939 die before 1940. ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 32 more years to go... ZooFari 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
F6 --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: file is licensed as cc-by-sa-2.0. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per OSX. ZooFari 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, proper licensing. Blurpeace 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
F6 --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: file is licensed as cc-by-sa-2.0. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per OSX. ZooFari 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, proper licensing. Blurpeace 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
betterpic TWLancerFortisStyle02.jpg --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Failed flickr review. -Nard the Bard 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. Blurpeace 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
betterpic TWLancerFortisStyle01.jpg --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Failed Flickr review. -Nard the Bard 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. Blurpeace 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
betterpic TWLancerFortisStyle04.jpg --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Failed flickr review. -Nard the Bard 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. Blurpeace 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
betterpic TWLancerFortisStyle03.jpg --Johnson.Wang (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Failed flickr review. -Nard the Bard 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. Blurpeace 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Insufficient details regarding it's background, unused and potentially an attack image Tabercil (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(Copyright 2010 Editora CARAS. Todos os direitos reservados) Copyrighted picture. - Original Source Leandromartinez (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by user:Kved (In category Media without a license as of 24 March 2010; no license) --GaAs11671 10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
because i dont like it James jmill miller (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, uploader asks for deletion. --GaAs11671 10:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 21:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete According to the source, this man was alive in 2000, no chance the photographer is dead before 1940! --GaAs11671 10:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Is surely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Is surely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Is surely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
When did MM. Angel and Mulette die? One of them is the author of the illustration, apparently made in 1930. Eusebius (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Second thought: I think it can be de minimis and kept as such. --Eusebius (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Eusebius --George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bapti: Copyright violation
Who is the author of the cover illustration? I doubt it is a 1935 edition. Eusebius (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Published in 1971. --GaAs11671 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius ;)
I found your message funny ;)
You know, most of the biography of Jean Kreitmann is taken from this book, written by Jean Kreitmann.
You can by this book anywhere in the world, and even in english :
http://www.abebooks.it/servlet/SearchResults?an=J.+Kreitmann
The ISBN of this book is : 0934532311
You like teasing me with my contributions on Wikipedia ;)
Have a good evening my friend.
Kind regards, --Lhistorien (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid none of this is related to the copyright of the photograph on the cover. --Eusebius (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete obviously copyrighted book cover. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Bapti ✉ 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Violates Windows XP copyright. Unlike other pictures in Category:Microsoft Windows logos this is not just an imitative copy, this is the actual logo. -Nard the Bard 10:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete:The XP logo is too simplistic top be eligible for copyright (simple shapes only). However, the quality is very low, and better alternatives exist so I would still support a deletion. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Like User:OSX said it to simplistic to be eligible for copyright... However, I disagree about deletion when it is said better alternatives exist. This was uploaded because there was no file of Just the logo itself. Lucas♍ 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ...Kenrick95 10:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Copyright violation
Nonsense Portuguese and Union maps
[edit]Portuguese Empire maps:
- File:Portuguese Empire map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only available maps of the Portuguese Empire in the 15th/16th centuries and widely used. Need improvements, thought. The Ogre (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As per Trasamundo, below. The Ogre (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is a scaled down duplicate of Portugal Empire.jpg that this latter map can substitute Portuguese Empire map.jpg in the other wikipedias. Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Portugal Empire.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only available maps of the Portuguese Empire in the 15th/16th centuries and used. Need improvements, thought. The Ogre (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment The concept of Portuguese Empire in the 15th/16th centuries is good but this map must be renamed and corrected according to sources.Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Portugal Empire.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete And NOT used. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is a another scaled down duplicate of Portugal Empire.jpg Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:Portuguese Empire 1415-1999.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete Redundant copy of File:Portugal Império total.png with less detail. And NOT used. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is variant of Portugal Império total.png based simply in the actual possessions.Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The issue with the validity of these two maps and their associations have been dealt with. The two files are now identical and this one is not in use at all, as of 14 May 2010.
- Delete This map and the one mentioned by User:Trasamundo have some inaccuracies, and in that case fix the one which is being used and just get rid of this one. Neither are completely correct, and this is the one no seems to care about. Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Portuguese Empire (identified):
- File:Portuguese discoveries and explorations.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete And NOT used. Superseded by V2 versions. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed duplicate Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:Descobrimentos e explorações portugueses.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete And NOT used. Superseded by V2 versions. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed duplicate Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:Descobrimentos e explorações portuguesesV2.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Keep No substitutes. Should be corrected. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Relevant Portuguese version map of explorations/discoveries and empire under King John III.--Uxbona (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed. It should be corrected because if it is a map of explorations/discoveries then why do it try to depict possesions? Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only delete the first and second in this group! Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:Portuguese discoveries and explorationsV2en.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Keep No substitutes. Should be corrected. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Relevant English version map of explorations/discoveries and empire under King John III.--Uxbona (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed. It should be corrected because if it is a map of explorations/discoveries then why do it try to depict possesions? Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only delete the first and second in this group! Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Iberian Union maps:
- File:Spain-Portugal-1600.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Used in the German language wikipedia. The Ogre (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is a scaled down duplicate of Iberian Union Empires.png with poor quality, and this latter map can substitute Spain-Portugal-1600.png.Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment But... It is not a duplicated, although the two maps are similar, since there are important differences (see, for example, North America and the Horn of Africa)! The Ogre (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundancy of File:Iberian Union Empires.png with bright yellow on Spanish claims making hard to see against white. (I reverted this map on the German Wikipedia to the one I just mentioned now making it NOT IN USE. Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We made several maps with a definitive design about Portuguese empire, according different reliable sources. It is not good to delete this map and put inside a map which lost several informations in different colours. The map File:Iberian Union Empires.png don't show several Portuguese territories and use and use blue instead of green for Portugal like on all other maps on German article. --Patrick (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:El imperio español II.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete Also as non used duplicate of File:Spanish Empire.png. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Ruled Britannia.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Keep NOT a map of any real empire, but a map of the ficctional "Spanish Habsburg Empire" in the alternate 1597 of Harry Turtledove's novel Ruled Britannia. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Imperio español.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Keep Although highly incorrect and wrong it is widely used in the Spanish, Catalan, and Galician languages wikipedias. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In fact it is highly incorrect but it uses a depiction based including claims.Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep USED Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- File:Mapa combinado UI-RE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete And NOT used. The Ogre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed.Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete NONSENSE INDEED File:Iberian Union Empires.png will do. Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Reasons
[edit]These maps of the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish-Poruguese Union of the 16th and 17th centuries are all nonsense duplicates which should be deleted! Use recomended maps of this nature which have been checked for accuracy.
In the case of each situation use the following (NOT FOR DELETION):
- File:Portugal Império total.png in place of section 1
- File:The Portuguese Empire.png in place of section 2
- File:Iberian Union Empires.png in place of all in section 3
Please understand the reasons for this mass deletion request and follow the advice above. For some pages it is morte appropriated to have an 'identified' map such as File:The Portuguese Empire.png while others require a non-identified version such as File:Portugal Império total.png! Maps & Lucy (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]We are heavily using this map: File:Descobrimentos e explorações portuguesesV2.png in Wiki-pt, and have no replacement for it. Why do you say it is nonsense?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This map: File:The Portuguese Empire.png has errors, such as saying that Madeira was "discovered" in 1419, something that has been widely discredited for decades, while this one: File:Descobrimentos e explorações portuguesesV2.png seems to be more accurate. Why should we replace that map with a worst version? And why should we replace a map with the names in Portuguese with an English version, specially when teh subject is our own Empire?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok to some of the delections but in section 2, I agree with Darwin. In my opinion both the File:Descobrimentos e explorações portuguesesV2.png (which is a relevant Portuguese version and useful to see the evolution of the empire along the discoveries/explorations) and the File:The Portuguese Empire.png, which is considered incomplete, but illustrates the main fortresses/basis supporting the empire - both these files should be kept.--Uxbona (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)(corrected 2nd map link , this is the one I intend to keep)
I propose that votes should be made individually on each map. The Ogre (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The files File:The Portuguese Empire.png and File:Iberian Union Empires.png are NOT proposed for deletion. If File:Descobrimentos e explorações portuguesesV2.png is used and there are no substitutes is must NOT be deleted. It should be corrected, however. The Ogre (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please inform exactly what should be corrected The Ogre, so that I (or other) can proceed to correct it. It was developed over king João III empire map, with data from referenced chronologies (Diffie, etc), and although many dates are subject to uncertainties, tried to reach a good compromise (I should include Tristan da Cunha island in pt version). As it was marked for delection as nonsense, and a correction demanded from you, it would be of great help to locate the errors. Thanks.--Uxbona (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I wrote before the map should be corrected because it shows possessions when the map supposedly depict discoveries. In case of depicting possesions must be corrected according to sources as this one [2] By 1600, when the Portuguese Empire (apart from Brazil) remained no more than a string of forts and islands running from West Africa to Macau or this one [3] A contrast is commonly made between an empire of settlement in the Atlantic - the islands and Brazil - and an empire of trade in the Indian Ocean and the Far East. Indeed the Estado da India has even been represented as being in essence little more than a network of trade routes. So it may be appropiate to recall the exent of Portugal's territorial empire in the East and how the Portuguese envisaged its expansion and development. Trasamundo (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please inform exactly what should be corrected The Ogre, so that I (or other) can proceed to correct it. It was developed over king João III empire map, with data from referenced chronologies (Diffie, etc), and although many dates are subject to uncertainties, tried to reach a good compromise (I should include Tristan da Cunha island in pt version). As it was marked for delection as nonsense, and a correction demanded from you, it would be of great help to locate the errors. Thanks.--Uxbona (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Trasamundo, it was intended to depict explorations/discoveries along with possessions (during João III de Portugal's reign, circa 1536/43): both are related, the former being the consequence of first. If the map File:Portugal 1521-1557.gif is correct - and it is widely used - I assume that you do not refer to Brazilian possessions (captaincies established in 1535-36, with limit in Tordesillas line) but to the green stripes along African coasts. If those are represented thiner, like in imperio total map, would that be acceptable to you? Is the imperio total map with its thin, almost imperceptible, coastal lines the model? (this map loses in efficacy and clarity while committing so much to exactitude, but that's my opinion). Thanks.--Uxbona (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Response here or here Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Trasamundo, I updated both maps, still those can be questionable by you: left explanation/arguing to your exposition in both maps' discussion page.--Uxbona (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Response here or here Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Most of these maps are in use (some quite heavily), and it's not our role to determine their correctness or accuracy (see COM:NPOV). This discussion belongs on the projects which actually use these maps, not here. –Tryphon☂ 16:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Tryphon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- 'Delete'/ Keep as seen above! Some of these SHOULD be deleted and others SHOULD NOT be deleted. It is quite clear from the discussions above that while some are used and should be kept and others, as the nomiator said, are mere nonsense duplicates and should be perminantly removed! Vadac (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Which map is used, should be discussed in the different articles. There are several reasons, why some maps are looking different. Changing File:Spain-Portugal-1600.png in German articles like done last night, caused several mistakes in description, for example. --Patrick (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)--Patrick (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Find it helpful to understand the reach of the Empire, however not as the only resource of course. Different graphic styles and content included help reveal a broader comprehension + understanding. Please keep this one in the map choices.---72.67.215.48 01:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted the files that were not in use and kept the ones that were still in use per discussion above. Maps & Lucy (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know the author (see caption)? Polarlys (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's in the public domain as it was published before 1940 (c. 1920). The author is irrelevant in this case. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is completely wrong. A work created in Germany in 1920 by a painter who was born in 1880 and died in 1950 is still protected by copyright for another ten years (PD 70 years after the author’s death). --Polarlys (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe “Franz Triebsch”? (1870–1956). --Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1) the author unknown is incorrect as the image is signed and 2) saying the author is death >70 years is incorrect if the author is not known. Triebsch is possible. Searching online for Franz Triebsch is hopeless, I not found any image large enough to compar for similar signature. The only one is http://bpkgate.picturemaxx.com/preview.php?IMGID=10008109 by Triebsch. I would say it looks similar, at last letter of the name, h, does - but honestly it is simply too small to say that. However, I stay with my initial words, the author is not unknown and the image is very likely not public domain. Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This file has the doubt of violating the copyright of the poster that Tokyo and the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department made. --Tail furry (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a poster introduced on this page.--Tail furry (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Blacklake (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: educational use not thinkable. Image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a FAQ: Is it possible to drink underwater? (1, 2, 3, ...). This image might be usefull to illustrate this. Educational use is thinkable. -- Common Good (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment and you think there will be a wikipedia articel that deals with the question "Is it possible to drink underwater"? Consider that this image is not used. --High Contrast (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not know. But I/we do not need to know.
- That is not our job. Our job is to provide freely-licensed images and other media.
- And please do not only think of Wikipedia. What about Wikibooks? (something like ISBN 1594866007)
- Or other websites outside the WMF universe (a quick search gave us several examples where this image might have been used.)
- There is no probleme with this image:
- no licensing problem
- Quality is OK
- Educational use is thinkable
- So I can't see a reason to delete it. -- Common Good (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Common Good. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Could be useful, why not? --GaAs11671 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Though I'm usually for a narrow "project scope" I wouldn't have a problem with that one. Common Good pointed out that educational usage is possible. --Isderion (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. If several users think the photo may be useful, let it be used then. Blacklake (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This user has uploaded several soccer-related copyvios, this image is a web-sized, no-EXIF thumbnail, the associated Flickr account contains no original and at least one copyvio. Eusebius (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Y2J0113 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Repetition
- Comment Yes? --GaAs11671 10:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
also File:Crotch2.jpg, File:Crotch3.jpg, File:Crotch4.jpeg
pornographic 24.2.212.60 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Also the other uploads by User:Blumental; subject may be recognizable from the series; no evidence that she agrees to the posting of these images here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the four-image series. no personal release; subject may be recognizable; low quality & redundant. –SJ+ 07:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope, except Crotch3.jpg, which is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced by the PD rationale. In general, documents issued by the French government are not PD. Pruneautalk 08:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Same applies to File:France-Diplôme Brevet.jpg and File:Baccalaurat-France.jpg: the uploader claims to be the copyright holder of these files, but they are clearly not. Pruneautalk 08:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep But whith caution. Texts of laws are not really copyrighted, which don't mean that they are PD (something like "you may reproduce, but must not change anything in the text). So I would say (1) text not copyrighted (2) graphical design too simple to be copyrighted. --GaAs11671 10:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not convinced by PD rationale. I do not think that the design is too simple to be copyrighted either. --A3 nm (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep--HAF 932 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike the US, France doesn't release public documents as PD. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, public documents of the French government are copyrighted by the government (see COM:L). Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this in scope? I think not. GeorgHH • talk 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. ZooFari 22:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a photo from a movie set. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Additional to the missing information (and therefore lack of scope) there also could be copyright concerns (photo in the backround and on the T-Shirt). therefore delete --Isderion (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per Isderion's rationale. Blacklake (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this gallery actually make sense like this? Homer Simpson is a copyrighted character from The Simpsons, meaning that all really interesting images of him are unfree. The images in here should rather go into a general Simpsons gallery with images of other voice actors as well. Furthermore, the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Homer Simpson" at Wikipedia (probably not only the English one) is rather disappointing for a reader. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --High Contrast (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's only one real image of Homer Simpson in that category anyway. Maybe we find somewhere a statue from him in a country with FOP? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is copyright violation, too, because this would be a derivative work of something that is copyrighted. --High Contrast (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Gallery is expandable. There are Homer Simpson cosplay (like this, cosplay is generally accepted on Commons, see old discussion), sculptures in full-FOP countries (this, for example), D'oh and donuts are related primarily to Homer and could be moved to Homer gallery. Trycatch (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unless some images of Homer Simpson in a country with FOP (which would not be copyright violations) can be produced, this gallery has no use. Kameraad Pjotr 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by user Energreen
[edit]The reason these should all be deleted is because TinEye shows several of this user's images used elsewhere, and there is no OTRS permission to prove User:Energreen is connected with the company Energreen. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- The account is maybe related to the company, uploading some images for self-promotion.. However, they forgot, that an image they got from some image distributors isnt their work, that they may reuse the image for their purposes but that they not have the right to 1) claim themself the creator 2) sublicense the image or 3) offering it to others for unrestricted reuse. This was done with the upload here, violating the presumed license they got for this stock photographs. I refer to File:Energreen (17).jpg which is quite obvious a stock photo available on various sources such as http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9144947-sunflower.php: wrong author, wrong source, wrong license claim. However, we may consider the whole upload as spam as this was done in fr:Energreen. --Martin H. (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Based on the fact that File:Energreen (17).jpg is a proven stock image, then it is quite possible that some (or all) of the others are as well. I'd say there is insufficient evidence to keep this user's uploads, so I would delete them all. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Many of these could be kept by a message to COM:OTRS from the company. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you inform User:Energreen, OSX? --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I did: User talk:Energreen#All your images. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
All deleted, likely copyright violations as stock images; no suitable permission from the copyright holder. Kameraad Pjotr 09:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No COM:FOP in France for modern art or buildings. The artist must be dead for 70 years before their works can be placed here. Since this was created after 1944, this stained glass is modern art . Not like the Eiffel Tower in France where its builder, Gustav Eiffel died in 1923 (more than 70 years ago) Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Cirt: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ste_Mere_Eglise_Paratroopers_from_Heaven.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stained glass in France. Not old enough to be in the Public Domain. Teofilo (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Already deleted in 2009-10, reuploaded by a bot. We should indicate in the original wiki that it is not allowed on Commons. --GaAs11671 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys. Kameraad Pjotr 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)