Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Not realistically useful; outside the project scope. Probably a copyright violation, since the claim that it is entirely the uploader's own work is most likely false. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Only used in now deleted vandalism: en:Daniel Paul Morris. You can also delete File:D-mo.jpg on which this is based (note the beer bottle) and which was only used in the deleted vandalism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy. Agree, was vandalism. Timneu22 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per above. Infrogmation (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
because 72.251.53.245 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominator did not provide a reason. I don't see any obvious problem with this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy closed as kept, per Dcoetzee; pass by anon deletion request with no reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Flickr account no longer exists, so the required record keeping chain is broken. That also raises the likelihood that it's a flickrwashing copyvio. Also no statement of consent of both parties to publish (which in my view is an important principle). 99of9 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep I'd assume you know better. This is exactly why we have the {{flickrreview|Cirt|2010-06-14}} templates. --DieBuche (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment That means the file was originally marked with a free license. It doesn't mean that the US pornography record keeping has been checked or passed on to Cirt. There used to be a document trackback path, but that no longer exists. And I gave two other reasons. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep recordkeeping: so what? So we can keep flickrimages here only as long as the image is up on flickr? Crazy idea for our repository. Fwashing:
I guess you will not bring up this concern on all images which are from deleted flickr accounts. So: why for this one?I do not see a special reason why exactly this picture should be a Fwashing image just be cause it is from a deleted account. Last concern: The image is pretty anon. Probably they were it who published it on flickr. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) altered --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)- Comment No, not all images should disappear when they disappear from Flickr. But those in a category with special legal additional record keeping requirements need to be thought through properly. If we claim that we are not secondary publishers (and are therefore exempt from keeping the records ourselves), we at least need to be able to point to who IS the publisher (who can show the records). That is now no longer possible. --99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then keeping here images with recordkeeping need is useless and a waste of time if they automatically have to be deleted when they vanish from flickr. That is not our aim to be a flickr mirror. But I have a question: who says we need to be able to point to a record keeper? Where is it written? Btw: we should move our servers out of the US. Their laws are not useful. --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- CommentFwashing: Play the ball, not the man, please don't attack my integrity if your evidence is based on a guess. Deleted accounts always raise the suspicion level in my mind. However, to be honest I don't see them that often. Occasionally, they are deleted after I notice them as likely copyvios Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth - 29yearold Nudist.jpg. In other cases my good faith assumptions about deleted streams turn out to be over generous, and they are once again blatant copyviolators Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sexy Sam.jpg. 99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I changed my comment above - that was what I meant. Sorry for the wrong words. If you had any hint that this is a copyvio then I will be among the first to vote for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- CommentAnonymity. I agree that so far this image is fairly anonymous. But it's possible that any anonymous image is cropped from an identifiable image, which could ultimately be used to expose the identities and cause major problems if it has already been widely used by our project and reusers. Therefore consent to freely publish should have been obtained, and should be asserted. --99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- And how should the consent be asserted in your view? The image was put on flickr and it is up to the uploader here to check that consent could be assumed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We had consent to freely publish on Flikr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm on the fence. License laundering is a concern here, and without access to the source account, there's no way to check for it. I've started noting on image talk pages when I review an image for laundering, just in case, but there's no systematic scheme set up for this right now, and I'm not sure we have the manpower for it. It's a troubling issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - it is an issue. Maybe we need another parameter in the flickr template
|launderingcheckX=--~~~~|launderingcheckXconfidence=50So flickr reviewers can put their name and confidence in. But who, which scale, and so on... And: AFAIK we also cannot check all files uploaded here. So... sad - but the reality. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - it is an issue. Maybe we need another parameter in the flickr template
Delete Now it becomes more and more evident that FlickR is not anymore a very good and reliable source. If even the corresponding FlickR account has "disappeared" then we cannot assume "good faith". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - copyright is not the main concern, deletions of the Flickr-account doesn't automatically cause deletion at Commons, but now we have no way to check other things, this is a high risk file - Jcb (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted. - Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Coital_Play.png 18 May 2011. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
no educational purpose, pornography TünnesUndSchäl (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, pornography is not a valid deletion reason and this is in use on several Wikimedia projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use so therefore has educational use. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Duplicated of File:EVD-jabalina-047.jpg Diego Grez return fire 22:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of File:EVD-jabalina-043.jpg Diego Grez return fire 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of File:EVD-jabalina-043.jpg Diego Grez return fire 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of File:EVD-jabalina-043.jpg Diego Grez return fire 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of
- File:EVD-jabalina-003.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-007.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-026.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-030.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-032.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-034.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-036.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-039.jpg
- File:EVD-jabalina-041.jpg
Seems that something went terribly wrong there --Neozoon (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- All deleted, except the 005 one. --Diego Grez return fire 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to upload a digitally enchanced version without any filehistory. Anwqel112 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment image is in use. I would suggest uploading the enhanced version under a different name (even adding spaces to the file name would make it a separate file), and substituting the new image in article space, then call for deletion of this one as lower quality orphan duplicate. Infrogmation (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
New file name: File:Dr_GhulamHussain.jpg so File:DrGhulamHussain.jpg is now lower quality orphan. You can go ahead and delete it now thanks for the help.--Anwqel112 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request. Orphan duplicate of File:Dr_GhulamHussain.jpg Infrogmation (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not needed. Probably bot failure. Diego Grez return fire 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: Bot failure: duplicated or non-substantial decoration; per request.
Image duplicated with "Fale - Barcellona - 104.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, 11.jpg is already deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 310.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 39.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. --Aylaross (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 39.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 39.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 39.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 104.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 104.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near duplicate files by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 138.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 136.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 136.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 157.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a duplicate. Trycatch (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 182.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a duplicate. Trycatch (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 197.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a duplicate. Trycatch (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 200.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 203.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 203.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 205.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 22.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 28.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 99.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Barcellona - 99.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete lots of near dulicates by Fale Amada44 (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 11.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is a duplicate of File:Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 11.jpg? come on. Trycatch (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator; Kameraad Pjotr 09:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 17.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 17.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 20.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment to all nominated images in this category: They're nice, but the image description "Barcelona, Spain" is rather useless, as this is obviously some sort of Wild-West scene here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 6.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a duplicate even nearly. Trycatch (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Trycatch. Kameraad Pjotr 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"it is the wordmark of a corporation; no evidence that this is public domain and it certainly does not consist solely of simple shapes and/or text"; converted from speedy Prosfilaes (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I posted this as it seemed to be controversial, but I see no reason to say it doesn't consist solely of text. The US copyright office doesn't considered calligraphy copyrightable, so whether or not we can find the exact font the letters are in, doesn't mean it's not just text in the eyes of the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree to Prosfilaes, COM:L#Fonts says letters are not copyrightable, regardless of the font used. This is nothing but text. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Registered trademark, yes. Copyright, no. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Disneyland Park Logo.svg. Not in use anymore Elisfkc (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's points. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisement for an architectural (?) project - private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A toy which has been placed in grass. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete also orphan and blurry. Infrogmation (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously copyright commercial image widely circulated on the web and uploaded by user with previous history of uploading copyright images DAJF (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
no EXIF, 34 hits by Tineye Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not realistically useful; outside the project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, apparent vanity joke photoshop. Infrogmation (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not realistically useful; outside the project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, unusable for Wikimedia projects Sevela.p 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, better quality alternative images in relevent category. Infrogmation (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not in the public domain. This work was published in the Geographical Journal, a UK publication, by somebody who died in 2000. —innotata 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tag is wrong -- non photographic works are PD in Pakistan 50 years after death of creator, and PD in UK 70 years pma, so bring it back in sixty years. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The PD claim made by the Wikia user is bogus, which is clear from looking at the EXIF data of his other uploads there. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Not permitted for use for financial gain." is in conflict with the "free for commercial use" requirement of Wikimedia. —Quibik (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The same goes for File:DMBMSG91008.jpg. —Quibik (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment image is in use. Agree, if uploader does not modify the apparent "no commercial use" proviso, images must be deleted from Commons as not free licensed. Infrogmation (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, out of project scope Infrogmation (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Sevela.p 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
pubescent scrawl? a joke anyway, hardly ever useful. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Sevela.p 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; orphan, uncategorized, no possible in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Unusable, useless...out of scope. This is Czech text "We want to support this project." It seems like unused {{Userpageimage}} Sevela.p 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is Slovak text (I want to support this project) but with everythink other I agree. Long time ago I was asked to add this image by potential new user. In these days it is really useless. --Liso (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
imaginary flag without source or any information, not used, small resolution Traumrune (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
copyvio Tekstman (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The game is shareware, therefore copyvio is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated of "Fale - Spain - Mini Hollywood - 17.jpg" Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. different files -- Common Good (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously copyright commercial image widely circulated on the web and uploaded by user with previous history of uploading copyright images DAJF (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, I questioned it when I needed to find a proper name for her. Cute, but not ours to publish.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Image is from the published set shown here. I am highly skeptical that the uploader is the photographer or otherwise the copyright owner. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mmxx: No source since 21 June 2010
Obviously copyright commercial image widely circulated on the web and uploaded by user with previous history of uploading copyright images DAJF (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously copyright commercial image widely circulated on the web and uploaded by user with previous history of uploading copyright images DAJF (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find the source for this image on the web, but it is highly likely to be a copyright commercial image since it was uploaded by a user who has uploaded a number of other clearly copyright images of Japanese soft-porn idols found on the web. DAJF (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tineye gives two http://www.tineye.com/search/86eaebe4a40f17a99adebdf260f4c8e9a5670b25/?order=desc, both are smaller. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
inconsistent license, the Flickr original is no-deriv restricted Fæ (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
- all have the same name. Although the photographer's site has a (c) notice, the Flickr license is, today, OK, and since the photographer himself is the uploader here, I don't see a problem. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- That a commons account name appears same text as a Flickr account does not guarantee these are the same people, however as the license on Flickr appears to have changed since I tagged the image, this is a non-issue as the licenses are now consistent. Fæ (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn by nom. Of course they could be different people, but we Assume Good Faith and have to rely on peoples' word much of the time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Falsely claimed as self-made. The image was most likely taken from here (unknown original author) Constantine ✍ 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted No source and author info - internet harvesting. SV1XV (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary template that's confusing and breaks accessibility. Let's just stick to the common usage of using stars or colons in discussions, not using such stuff. Furthermore, we'll soon use LiquidThreads anyway, which will then make this template pointless. I also don't like the way it's used elsewhere, so let's avoid this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Used on multiple pages on this project, contributors have seemed to find it useful. No reason to delete it outright, rather just to encourage best practice among contributors, and this template is often helpful to re-orient discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - very useful for long discussions unless ":" spacing is not automatically reset and marked accordingly. --Mattes (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I use it a lot. A neat way to reset the indents, or, for my convenience, when I want a bulleted list in a discussion that is already indented -- doing indented bullets is inconsistent for some reason. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess keep it because it is being used but I do wish people didn't feel need to use stuff like this. I think it's distracting and unnecessary (in many of the uses I saw there was no reason to unident, let alone in such an abrupt attention-grabbing way). Rocket000 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Further Comment. I like it when a discussion is five or six :s deep and needs to come out to the left. I also like it when a discussion is only one or two deep and I want to use a bulleted list -- it's a way to show that you're honoring our indenting convention for discussions, but resetting it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't feel like you got to defend yourself on my account. I've seen worse, much worse. Template:Left66 is one of the milder ones; not many remain in the template space anymore. We've spent years cleaning a certain individual's creations (it spread to every English wiki). Rocket000 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept as it is used on many pages. Even if it becomes obsolete we should keep it in respect to older discussions. Please feel free to add some warning instead in its documentation that its usage is discouraged. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploader being the author of the photo seems doubtful. Also, the exact same image exists earlier on the net (for example a random blog post from 2007 vs 2009 uploaded to Commons). Quibik (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment- maybe copyrighted Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source and likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
copyright infringements6AND5 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect license and no freedom of panorama in the US for artworks. Quibik (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is a photo of a McDonald's restaurant sign. {{Trademark}} is probably relevent, but I see nothing that would require deletion for violating the copyright of some artwork. If that were the only concern, I would vote keep. However you are absolutely correct that the uploader's license is incorrect, in fact absurd. If the uploader took the photo and is willing to release their work under a legitimate free license, fine. If not, the photo has no relevant license and will need to be deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, changed license to {{PD-own}}, the sign is {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Imagem163_Gil_Vicente._Compilaçam_de_todalas_obras._Andres_Lobato_impressor._Lisboa,_1580._O_monge.jpg
[edit]
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 21:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Gil Vicente seems to have died in the 1530s, but there's no certainty that this draw is from 1580. --Diego Grez return fire 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a drawing from Compilaçam. This book was published in 1586 and is actually written in medieval Portuguese - please see [1], where we can read: VICENTE, Gil, Anno de M.D.LXXXXVI, Compilaçam de Todalas Obras de Gil Vicente, a qual se reparte em cinco livros. O primeyro he de todas suas cousas de deuaçam. O segundo as Comedias. O terceyro as Tragicomedias. No quarto as Farsas. No quinto, as obras meudas. Vam emendadas pelo Sancto Officio como se manda no cathalogo deste Regno. Foy impresso em a muy nobre, e sempre leal Cidade de Lixboa, por Andres Lobato. --Santosga (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, clearly {{PD-old}} per Santosga's argument. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 22:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Image is in use, and uploader claims to by the photographer and has free licensed it. If there is any reason why this image ought to be deleted, please explain. Infrogmation (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, but I'm tired of seeing these in the no source backlog. ZooFari 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If there is no apparent reason why they should be listed as "no source", I suggest removing the tag; the person who added the tag is welcome to comment or post a legitimate request for deletion if they wish. Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work. All four uploads by user appear to be posed professional photos with varying or missing EXIF. User's deleted contribs show own work claims for obvious movie screenshots and other scans. Wknight94 talk 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Wknight94, including the three listed separately below:
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work. All four uploads by user appear to be posed professional photos with varying or missing EXIF. User's deleted contribs show own work claims for obvious movie screenshots and other scans. Wknight94 talk 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Lorenz Theater.JPG: Converted from {{nsd}}
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work. All four uploads by user appear to be posed professional photos with varying or missing EXIF. User's deleted contribs show own work claims for obvious movie screenshots and other scans. Wknight94 talk 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wolfi Huebsch1 k.jpg: Converted from {{nsd}}
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work. All four uploads by user appear to be posed professional photos with varying or missing EXIF. User's deleted contribs show own work claims for obvious movie screenshots and other scans. Wknight94 talk 02:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woelfi Allgemein.jpg: Converted from {{nsd}}
There is no information why this is PD. It is not own work - uploader on enwiki is 24 and photo is from 1963. MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems churlish to question the validity of the Lakonia photograph, especially as it contributes - helpfully - to the article. A large proportion of the photographs used on Wikipedia are uploaded by people younger than the event discussed, so to question it on that basis verges on the ridiculous. Unless there are objections from the copyright owner (bearing in mind that the picture was taken in 1963 and is therefore over 25 years old does copyright still exist?) there is no real reason to remove it, and given that it portrays a moment pivotal to the subject of the article, i.e. the destruction of the chief subject - it's removal would be utterly pointless. Unhelpful and obstructive deletion requests like this should be rejected out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10. Nov. 2010 (UTC)
- Usefulness of an image has no meaning for copyright. A 24-your-old cannot be the author of shot from 1963. Thereby, the uploader claim of "PD-author" is bogus. --Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that the file is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}} ZooFari 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Found on MySpace at http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/99/l_f8f79682f25345a9b3d7bfcccd6fbed9.jpg. Needs permission at minimum. Uploader's only contribution so likely a drive-by copyvio. Wknight94 talk 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This logo appears to be too complex to be in the public domain on grounds of lacking originality. The tree in particular is quite detailed and does not contain only “simple geometric shapes”. There is inconsistent use of this logo across projects, with this Commons versions used on the German Wikipedia, but a fair use version has been uploaded separately onto the English Wikipedia. This logo can re-uploaded as necessary on individual projects which accept non-free images. CT Cooper (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree, this in my opinion does not meet the requirements of {{PD-textlogo}}. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, too complicated for {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}}; edit summary: nsd: looks like a scan ZooFari 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As a general rule timetables may not be copyrighted, but is this in scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope - the portrayed minor is a blocked sockpuppeteer on nl-wiki as well, privacy of this person should be protected so he can grow up and not be hunted by juvenile wrong doings later. Also non-free flickr picture --MoiraMoira (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The source photo on Flickr is free licensed, and the license is accurately reflected in the copy here. The photo is in use in articles in Wikipedias in multiple languages, so apparently is within project scope. The photograph appears to show a young man in a public place, and I see nothing compromising or violating about it. Whatever the connection to a blocked user, I don't understand why this particular image is a problem that needs deleting. Could you please elaborate as to what the problem is? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- the person brags about it using his full name on the internet. It is a child and its privacy should be protected later once he grows up and realises what he has done. Wikimedia should be considerate with juveniles who cannot oversee their actions now. MoiraMoira (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- "once he grows up and realises what he has done" sounds to me like there is some suggestion someone might have done something at least slightly embarrassing or improper? As far as I can see, the young fellow has visited a popular theme park. I and millions of others have visited theme parks as well, and I'm not aware of any shame attaching to that activity. Seriously, what am I missing? Still puzzled, Infrogmation (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- the person brags about it using his full name on the internet. It is a child and its privacy should be protected later once he grows up and realises what he has done. Wikimedia should be considerate with juveniles who cannot oversee their actions now. MoiraMoira (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think MoiraMoira objects to the fact that the boy has managed to get his photograph on 16 different Wikipedias. That also makes me uneasy, but the images used on the individual Wikipedias is not our concern. As for protecting the kid, if he or his parents wanted the image taken down, I would do it, but I see no potential harm to him by this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, I am the kid in the picture. I think it's awesome, I'm famous without doing anything haha :D I don't have a problem with this photo being on Wikipedia, my parents don't either. --80.57.61.230 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope and file is freely licensed. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooit naar Flickr geüploaded met een CC2.0-licentie. Ik weet dat je die eigenlijk niet meer kunt intrekken wanneer je die licentie ooit op een foto hebt geplakt, maar ik zou 't toch waarderen als mijn foto in ieder geval van Wikimedia zou verdwijnen: Ik probeer m'n online voetafdruk wat te verkleinen, én de foto verschijnt nu ook in wat minder leuke context, namelijk het verkopen van nep-pakken: https://www.looopings.nl/weblog/20514/Frans-bedrijf-claimt-origineel-Walibi-kostuum-te-verkopen.html Luuk58 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Mechanical translation: "uploaded to Flickr with a CC2.0 license. I know you can't actually revoke it once you've pasted that license on a photo, but I'd still appreciate it if my photo would at least disappear from Wikimedia: I'm trying to reduce my online footprint a bit, and the photo now also appears in a less fun context, namely selling fake suits:" -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
- Comment Image in use, in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous decision on 19:03, 26 November 2010. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The photograph was released under a free license, which is, of course, irrevocable. The nomination does not address that the image is in use, so it should be declined. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use, free licensed, no support for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Converted from {{Nsd}}. PD-ineligible maybe? Also note license template is self. ZooFari 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio from http://www.floweurope.com/pdf/prospekt_ap/Prospekt_A&P_F.pdf. (The layout might not be original enough to be eligible for copyright, but the text probably is.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Policy says tables should be generated rather than images -- that makes them easier to translate. Copyright is problematic -- you can't copyright information and this is the logical arrangement of it. Since it's in use, I'd be inclined to keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, data is {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There was no "Anywynd the Breaker", not even in myth or sagas --Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is a perfectly correct English exonym and the Swedish name of the legendary king is in the category's brief introductory text. I believe that should suffice. If anyone doesn't like this name, suggest another name for the category rather than deleting it! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the name is the problem, then the swedish one could well be used. Out cat policy allows cats for proper names to be non-english. --Túrelio (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- A category:Bröt-Anund would be empty. Nothing is known about him, he is just a line in an apocryphal list of kings. There is not even a drawing of him in Category:Hugo Hamilton. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we have nothing to put into that cat, any further discussion is futile. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- As long as the highly relevant subcat Category:Anundshög keeps being removed, as it has been twice again today, there will be "nothing to put into that cat" and it will be empty. The question is whether or not a tumulus long associated with this legendary king should be found under his category or not. I am now in a library where there are at least eight reputable books referring to the legend. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Added sufficient ref to category's intro text. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I might add that Mr. Kuiper just removed the proper exonym Anwynd from all four English Wikipedia articles about kings by that name (see his conrtrib history there), of which 2 are historical persons. Not because there is anything wrong with Anwynd as such an exonym, but only because Mr. Kuiper does not want it there right now. This is typical of his manipulative and unrelenting stubbornness which makes it so extremely unpleasant to deal with him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no such legend. The association of Anundshög with Bröt-Anund was just one of many similar unfounded assignments of sv:Johan Peringskiöld in 1700. And because nothing is known about this mound, everybody writing a book about it writes that there is nothing to support any connection. Ohlmarks is not a serious historian.
- Woodzing keeps expanding this with references, but categories are not encyclopedia articles. Anyway, "Anwynd" is shear invention by Woodzing. In modern English, it is only used in "The Lord of the Rings". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as we have lower/different criteria of relevance/scope than Wikipedias, we can host and can have cats for fictious things, provided there are any media (images etc.) available. Of course, the description of such a cat and the corresponding sup-cat(s) should not suggest that fictious things are real, if that is the case. --Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- No such thing is inferred in this case, as you would see if you read the text. No one that I have ever heard of has asserted that this person was real. Every serious, professional historian, however, has acknowledged the existence of the legend about him and (note!) about his burial in that tumulus. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS Tolkien used several old English names, originally Scandinavian, such as Anwynd (Sw: Anund) and Beorn (Sw: Björn) which were well known to him as such. The assertion that I invented the name is negated above by the rest of that sentence. Tolkien's knowledge of this name (which I did not know of until now) only goes to show that that part of this exonym is 100% proper. And the "Bröt-" part in Swedish can only be translated into English as Broke-, but it is felt that Anwynd the Breaker is clearer English than Broke-Anwynd for a man who legend has breaking through the wilderness to make way for roads he built all over his kingdom (not for a man who ran out of money). SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as we have lower/different criteria of relevance/scope than Wikipedias, we can host and can have cats for fictious things, provided there are any media (images etc.) available. Of course, the description of such a cat and the corresponding sup-cat(s) should not suggest that fictious things are real, if that is the case. --Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we have nothing to put into that cat, any further discussion is futile. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- A category:Bröt-Anund would be empty. Nothing is known about him, he is just a line in an apocryphal list of kings. There is not even a drawing of him in Category:Hugo Hamilton. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the name is the problem, then the swedish one could well be used. Out cat policy allows cats for proper names to be non-english. --Túrelio (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The real underlying issue here seems to be whether Category:Anundshög (and the various other burial mound categories, such as Category:Skopintull, Category:Ottarshögen, Category:Beorn Ironsides tumulus at Munsö, Category:Eysteinn tumulus at Östanbro and Category:Royal Mounds of Gamla Uppsala) should be categorized under Category:Mythological kings of Sweden or not. This is a legitimate question of categorization policy: these burial mounds clearly aren't mythological kings of Sweden (except, just possibly, for a very small part), so proponents of strict hierarchical categorization would not consider them appropriate subcategories for that parent category. On the other hand, they clearly are associated with said kings, so those favoring looser associative categorization might well consider them useful there.
- That said, let me suggest what might serve as at least a temporary compromise: create a new Category:Burial mounds associated with mythological kings of Sweden and move those categories under it. The question of whether or not this new category should be a subcat of Category:Mythological kings of Sweden can then, if necessary, be discussed in a more appropriate forum and this DR can be closed. How about that? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - an excellent suggestion! Obviously, we do not know who was - or was not - buried in the majority of these tumuli. So your suggestion is great. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Woodzing supports deleting this category, good. As to a new category, it would just duplicate Category:Burial mounds in Sweden, as about every mound more than a few meters high has been associated by at least one author with some king or ruler or god or character from Beowulf or whatnot. Not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is asserted (for the umpteenth time by a certain user) that I have written something which I have not. Deletion of this category is not mentioned in the excellent compromise I support. Of course, only tumuli with well documented legends including the burials of these well known characters should be thus categorized. Something wrong with the wonderful legends inspired by Beowulf, in general, or only in this context? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Woodzing supports deleting this category, good. As to a new category, it would just duplicate Category:Burial mounds in Sweden, as about every mound more than a few meters high has been associated by at least one author with some king or ruler or god or character from Beowulf or whatnot. Not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - an excellent suggestion! Obviously, we do not know who was - or was not - buried in the majority of these tumuli. So your suggestion is great. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Various SVGs with missing raster images
[edit]
Useless without the (missing) background file DieBuche (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ... which may be protected by copyright anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:Bu-map-it.svg
- File:Congreso1993sitze.svg
- File:Dospot2.svg
- File:Dobrudja ethnic.svg
- File:EastMediterraneanEEZ.svg
- File:Einwohner borken 1570 2007.svg
- File:Einde autosnelweg.svg
- File:Escudo de Burriana (Castellón).svg
- File:Escudo de Melide.svg
- File:Blason-Chevron-d'or-sur-fond-d'azur.svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
corrupted SVGs Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Saint Petersburg Railway Museum Flyer
[edit]- File:SPb railway museum 000.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 001.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 002.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 003.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 004.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 005.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 006.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPb railway museum 007.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyrighted. At first sight. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delay There should be an {{OTRS pending}} note on these images. The permission line reads Die Freigabe ist beim Eisenbahnmuseums Sankt Petersburg beantragt, which means "A request for permission from the railway museum in St. Petersburg is underway". So we should wait a about 2 weeks at least. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violations lacking suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No source or author information. —innotata 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Information has been added after the DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
