Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_cavalcade_049.jpg){kind=link}
![86 File:Madonna_performs_"Into_the_Groove"_in_Sofia.JPG](#File:Madonna_performs_"Into_the_Groove"_in_Sofia.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Low-resolution, out of scope as not useful for an educational purpose. Just because this was freely licensed doesn't mean a bot should dump every such file on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment it's not out of scope at all, maintanance rather than deletion is needed. The full size version from Geograph should be uploaded over this filename, Oxyman (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: 
Fixed -- Common Good (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Low resolution makes this useless. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment it's not out of scope at all, maintanance rather than deletion is needed. The full size version from Geograph should be uploaded over this filename, Oxyman (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed -- Common Good (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It has a other picture equal to this. The other picture equal to this, is beautiful. And this picture is ugly. This picture is very clear/light. Eduardo P (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate file Béria Lima msg 13:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of Telefe, Argentina Ezarateesteban 12:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Screenshot of a TV program - not own work, not permission available. --Andrea (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
sexistic --Juliana (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete - Wikipe-tan stands for growing up in Wikipedia as a sex symbol with childish eyes and long legs? Delete and draw someone more grownup and sincere. --Adornix (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--JN466 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Why don't we just completely delete Wikipe-tan entirely? For those of us who are not female, Japanese or otaku, she is not a representative figure at all. Better we force ourselves to come up with a new, more inclusive avatar. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- If there is to be a bulk deletion of all the wikipetan artwork then it should probably be discussed on the village pump, rather than on a single image deletion page. Arguments presented here should be specific to this image, and were I to close this particular deletion I don't think I'd be at all moved by the argument that the image it not representative— no single image will be. Also, those proposing to delete all the images will probably need to suggest a process for replacing the cases where the images are utilized in articles in an orderly manner. You may also want to focus on some of the more overtly offtopic/sexualized images e.g. File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- No deletions because of moral issues, please. Denis Barthel (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- We need not be so rigid when it comes to an image that fundamentally—and negatively—impacts our community's image in the greater community and among its own members. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sexistic is an opinion and not mine. This image violates no rules, guidelines or wikiquette principles. Several supporters of deletion indicate general resentment of character pictured in this image. There has been no general discussion on deleting images of said character and this is not the place to start such a discussion. Concluding, I see no reason to delete in the arguments presented. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I submit that, unlike a number of other images we (and I mean the Commons "we") have had these conversations about, this is an image with no utility to anyone outside of Wikimedia projects, and not useful in a practical way within them. Its use is purely decorative, and decorative in a way that a significant portion of the community (not just women) find objectionable. Therefore our usual standards of discussion do not apply. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Gmaxwel's comment above. Personally I don't see how this image, Wikipe-tan in general, or most Wikipe-tan images are 'sexistic', horridly offensive, or anything. This may have something to do with my associations with this type of figure, but I don't well see how others do. Some have these opinions, some don't, as the creator of this image pointed out. And a discussion on whether to delete certain types of Wikipe-tan images shouldn't occur at DR, and should encompass all of those seen as offensive (in fact, a derivative is nominated here, but not the widely used original). —innotata 21:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)- Keep -- 'Sexistic' is a made-up word. Therefore, it does not have a definition by which this image can be fairly judged by one and all. Currently everyone is judging the merits of this image based on what they believe 'sexistic' to mean. It cannot be used as a reason for deletion. 69.106.4.187 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Please read Deletion requests for why a one-word opinionated judgement does not qualify as "deletion request". --92.231.227.128 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - There is absolutely no reason to delete this specific image. On an unrelated note, I don't see any reasons for completely deleting Wikipe-tan. It is wikipedia's most well-known mascot and very recognizable. - 91.153.24.202 15:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid arguments provided by nom. Btw, being a female, I see nothing sexistic here. -- deerstop. 11:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete "Sexistic" is an not a valid rational for deletion and is contrary to COM:NOTCENSORED. However, this image is the same image as File:Wikipe-tan's past, now and future.png except without the transparency, thus rendering it technically inferior. This this is a derived image which is technically inferior to the original image, it creates a valid reason for deletion. TheFarix (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is the removal of the text on the original image, which makes the image less usefull. Taketa (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per The Farix's comment. I was going to say Keep, but given that their is a superior version out there, this one should be deleted. This is not an endorsement of the rationale laid out by the nominator, but solely for technical reasons.Jinnai (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If this will be deleted by "technical reasons", no other author has the easy posibility to improve it. Is it sexistic? You must be kidding. --Niabot (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, nomination is just childish. Maybe some delete-voters should grow up and do some sincere things. --Don-kun (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Poor excuse for a nom reason and per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Good picture and could be very usefull for using at Anime oder Manga Lemmas --Dr. Koto (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'm a woman and I think that this gendergap's initiative is a real madness. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 18:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I like this Wikipe-tan--Хомелка (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is a legitimate and useful modification of File:Wikipe-tan's past, now and future.png: namely, it has the Latin text removed, making it more suitable for the projects in languages that do not use the Latin alphabet. The only reason it's not in use yet is that it was only uploaded recently. As for the "sexistic" comment, I find to to be absurd. How could an image of a baby, a young girl and a woman dressed in old-fashioned attire and reading books be considered "sexistic"? Or are you assuming that all Wikipedia readers have a stocking fetish and thus manage to read some sort of nonexistent sexualized element in this innocent image? — Tetromino (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly keep — This image has nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. On the contrary, it symbolizes evolution of the Wikipedia from its early days to the full-grown Encyclopedia. Moreover, i believe accusing Wikipedia mascot and thus all the community of being sexist highly contradicts to all the principles of good faith that we always regarded as a rule. Avenger911 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I never heard about Wikipe-tan before so my opinion shouldn't be bias. Take a look at the picture (and forget about any prejudice things). Do you see any issues with the picture? I don't. Oleg (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep OMG! Why delete? --minhhuy*= (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image violates no rules, guidelines or wikiquette principles. There is no reason to delete this image--SamOdin (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the word "sexistic" does not exist :) AndyVolykhov (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: is this a joke? Jcb (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
duplicate file Fry1989 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This fin flash is a duplication/identical to the flag of Angole. It wastes Commons serves space. Also, this user has insisted on self-promotion of his files on Wikipedia, when the Flag of Angola.svg file would sufice. It should be deleted Fry1989 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
duplicate file Fry1989 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This fin flash is a duplication/identical to the flag of Algeria. It wastes Commons serves space. Also, there is no border on the fin flash, it is identical to the flag, however this user has insisted on self-promotion of his inaccurate files on Wikipedia, when the Flag of Algeria.svg file would sufice. It should be deleted Fry1989 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This a Fin Flash, and not the a the flag, It is being used in a the "Fin Flash" article in WP, although the user Fry1989 keeps removing it without any explaination, and moreover no concensus gained, by other editors Jetijones (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- As per the countless talk sessions I have had on Jetijones talk pages both here and on Wikipedia-EN, when the fin flash is that national flag, and not a distinctly different mark, then you can use the svg flag file we already have on Commons. The name of the file itself is irrelevant when the fin flash and the national flag are identical. In this case they are! The national flag of Algeria is painted on the aircraft as the flash, therefore the national flag IS the flash. Also, Jetijones has insisted on putting borders on the white sections of fin flashes when they aren't there, or in the rare case they are, it's NOT part of the flash itself, but there for contrast because the white of the flash is on the white background of the fuselage. That makes this flash file inaccurate. It doesn't have a border in real life, Jetijones just puts them on there for some unexplained reason, the only one I can think of being that he doesn't think people can tell where the white of a flash begins and where it ends, which is kinda insulting to other users when you think about it. Anyhow, as the flash is identical to the national flag of Algeria, that file should be used, and this one should be deleted, it's unnecessary duplication and wastes Commons Server space. Fry1989 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
duplicate file Fry1989 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This fin flash is a duplication/identical to the flag of Argentina. It wastes Commons serves space. Also, this user has insisted on self-promotion of his files on Wikipedia, when the Flag of Argentina.svg file would sufice. It should be deleted Fry1989 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate and inacurrate file Fry1989 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This fin flash is a duplication/identical to the Naval Ensign of Bahamas (except that the actual fin flash is 1:2 like the Ensign, not this wrong ratio). It wastes Commons server space. Also, there is no border on the fin flash, it is identical to the flag, however this user has insisted on self-promotion of his inaccurate files on Wikipedia, when the Naval Ensign of Bahamas.svg file would sufice. It should be deleted Fry1989 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In this case there is a distinct black outline border as seen in the ref picture here. This "Fin Flash" is clearly not the same as the flag. Jetijones (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- per my talk on Jetijones EN page.
- Here is some proof, so we can settle this problem. All the following pics show the flash, which is in essence the Naval Ensign of the Bahamas, in the ratio of 1:2, as is the Ensign itself. 1, 2, 3, 4. And as you can see in this photo (and pic 3 as well), the flash does not have a black border. Why? because the fuselage is grey. The black border is used when the flash is on a white background, so you can make it out better, it's not part of the flash itself. Fry1989 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is why this file should be deleted. Wrong ratio, and also the border is NOT part of the flash but is used for contrast on white fuselage paint. Fry1989 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- per my talk on Jetijones EN page.
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
duplicate file Fry1989 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This fin flash is a duplication/identical to the flag of Russia. It wastes Commons serves space. Also, there is no border on the fin flash, it is identical to the flag, however this user has insisted on self-promotion of his inaccurate files on Wikipedia, when the Flag of Russia.svg file would sufice. It should be deleted Fry1989 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplication of the file Flag of Pakistan.svg. The fin flash is the flag of Pakistan. Fry1989 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's necessary to create a Pakistan fin flash file showing a light border. This is to give the reader a better understanding of where the white section of the fin flash begins, and ends. These images are being used on en.wikipedia "Fin Flash" article, and are in a gallery setting, so there is no other way to create a border, unless it is physically drawn in, and there lies the problem. You can't draw a light border on Countries flag file, that would make those files inaccurate. Here are some examples of Fin Flashes with light boarders shown here, here, and here, that don't seem to be a problem. Jetijones (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I don't see why fin flash images would need to have their edges delineated any more than flag images do, or why they'd be any less inaccurate if you did. In any case (with the default skin at least) the <gallery> tag will give a slightly contrasting off-white background to an image; if you use Template:Image gallery, then you also get a nice border for free:
- Outside of galleries, you can used the "border" parameter:
- So it isn't necessary to add a border to an image when it isn't an intrinsic part of it, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf 21:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before. When the Fin Flash is the national flag, we use the flag file. This is unneccesary duplication of that. Jetijones insistance on duplicating flag flags needs to stop. There were two agreements above to delete, and it was shown that this duplication is not needed.
Delete per duplication of File:Flag of Pakistan.svg Fry1989 eh? 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- It was Kept, need I say more? Jetijones (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Under the reasoning that it was still in use, which it is no longer. Two users agree there is no need for this duplication, and you have freely admitted that you only add borders to make white sections more decernable, not because they're actually part of the fin flash itself. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - insufficient reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a sufficient reason. The fin flash is the national flag of Pakistan, with no borders. The photos prove that. Per the above discussion, it was also shown that a separate file with a border isn't needed because you can add a border by using "|border". This file is a useless duplication. Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is not only meant for Mediawiki based sites like Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a sufficient reason. The fin flash is the national flag of Pakistan, with no borders. The photos prove that. Per the above discussion, it was also shown that a separate file with a border isn't needed because you can add a border by using "|border". This file is a useless duplication. Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Jcb's last comment, showing it is not a "useless duplication". --Rosenzweig τ 15:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Vanity photo. Used in a now deleted out of scope article. out of scope. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out-of-scope personal photo. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine what this unused file would be useful for, nor can I really even tell what it is. Neither the text nor the description are particularly enlightening. Homo lupus (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as utter nonsense. I suppose it's some school-age game. NVO (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted billboard. A photo of a non-free image does not magically make said non-free image free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain
- why an image of this Coca-Cola sign is not covered by German FOP,
- why this image differs from obviously accepted ones in Category:Coca-Cola signs and
- and what particular part(s) of this image seem(s) copyrighted in your eyes. -- Ies (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:FOP#Germany Ezarateesteban 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 09:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, also text looks from a book or similar, and the content seems fake ("coño" it´s a very bad word, any special language). --Andrea (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any potential use for it. --TFCforever (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 09:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Pruneautalk 10:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. --TFCforever (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No images. 84.61.170.180 10:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: user's subpage, he can keep as your decide Ezarateesteban 00:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't remove the links to the deleted images from this page. 84.61.139.62 17:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - gallery contained only deleted files. --Denniss (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe this is simple enough for PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
this is the logo of our University's Department known as the IAA, you may visit the web http://www.au.edu.pk/ for further details. -Zainraza90(Talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pattern meet the threshold of originality, and is copyrighted. There should be sent a permission from Air University to OTRS. Else delete. JDavid (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The author Conrad H. Schiffer died in 1942 according to this discussion on the German Wikipedia. The image is still unfree. De728631 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/Russia statues; it appears this was erected in 2003. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/Russia statues; it appears this was erected in 1954. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Prepare to be flakked by our Ukrainian "brethren" ;) NVO (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yikes - an ugly error. Does it matter that this area of Ukraine is known for being pro-Russian and speaking the Russian language more openly than the rest of Ukraine? Oh, right, the deletion: no FOP in Ukraine either. If I'd known, I would have just added it to User:Magog the Ogre/FOP Ukraine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not exactly an error - rather, lack of reliable info. That the thing is installed in Ukraine doesn't necessarily mean it was published there. I could have been made elsewhere, presented to the public there, or even copied in numbers, and then brought to Crimea. Like hundreds of cloned Lenins. In this case, the sculpture was made by en:Yevgeny Vuchetich, native of Ukraine who lived and worked in Moscow, so the above scenario could be possible. NVO (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well the law is pretty finicky over technicalities about where something was published, but commons needn't be. Does our policy state where an item is published, or where it's located? In either case, it's still copyrighted both in Russia and Ukraine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted in Russia - their law does not use the concept of copyright at all. It's only a house rule here, at commons. No one here cares about real-world laws - until it comes after them. It works both ways - following commons rules does not protect the uploader. But, like I told you before, this piece of "art" is not worth fighting for. NVO (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, Russia signed the Berne Convention. Therefore their law does have the concept of copyright under some name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't not. Please keep your incompetence to yourself or better get some basic education on the subject. NVO (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, Russia signed the Berne Convention. Therefore their law does have the concept of copyright under some name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted in Russia - their law does not use the concept of copyright at all. It's only a house rule here, at commons. No one here cares about real-world laws - until it comes after them. It works both ways - following commons rules does not protect the uploader. But, like I told you before, this piece of "art" is not worth fighting for. NVO (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well the law is pretty finicky over technicalities about where something was published, but commons needn't be. Does our policy state where an item is published, or where it's located? In either case, it's still copyrighted both in Russia and Ukraine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not exactly an error - rather, lack of reliable info. That the thing is installed in Ukraine doesn't necessarily mean it was published there. I could have been made elsewhere, presented to the public there, or even copied in numbers, and then brought to Crimea. Like hundreds of cloned Lenins. In this case, the sculpture was made by en:Yevgeny Vuchetich, native of Ukraine who lived and worked in Moscow, so the above scenario could be possible. NVO (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
NVO, there is no reason for a personal attack. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. There are nicer ways of disagreeing with someone than calling someone names. I, for example, think poorly of your opinions here, but I don't go around calling you incompetent and unlearned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted billboard. A photo of a non-free image does not magically make said non-free image free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
no evidence that the copyright holder gave permission under this license; degraded JPEG; should probably upload http://www.asdk12.org/schools/goldenview/pages/media/goldenlogo.gif (or PNG conversion) to en.wikipedia.org with en:WP:FAIRUSE instead Closeapple (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
no educational purpose: ambiguously named article/gallery page (Illinois has 5 school districts numbered "90") with no reason to replace, since it would still have only 1 Commons item Closeapple (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure Illinois has 5 different school districts named "90"? That runs against any naming logic. District 90 does have 5 elementary schools. Perhaps that's what you've found. If there are indeed 5 identically named districts, then perhaps we should just rename this page "O'Fallon District 90". As far as utility goes, gallery pages are preferable to just lumping images together under categories as galleries contain more information. Rklawton (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Galleries can contain more information, but often they don't actually do so. And I checked: there really does appear to be only that one file on Commons so far that is this school district. There are five districts #90 in Illinois:
- River Forest School District 90 (Cook Co., 3 grade schools)
- Lisbon Community Consolidated School District 90 (Kendall Co., single grade school)
- Pontiac Township High School District 90 (Livingston Co., single high school)
- O'Fallon Community Consolidated School District 90 (St. Clair Co., the one being discussed here, 5 elementary and 2 middle schools)
- Taft School District 90 (Will Co., single grade school).
- And since you brought it up, I've just been dying to reveal this craziness since I researched it the last couple of months, so here is some scattered school scheme scintillation:
- School districts in Illinois are unique only to the county — or possibly by "regional superintendent" these days (which they used to call "county superintendent" before some of them merged). Fortunately, the regional superintendents seem to be sane enough (or maybe just required) to coordinate the number of each district that overlaps county lines.
- In the old days, direct attention to individual school systems at the state level would have been almost impossible: In the early 1940s, Illinois peaked at over 12,000 (twleve thousand) school districts, 10,000 of which were of single one-room schools with an average of 12 students each. A law was passed aiming to reduce the number of districts to 2000; the legislature then began passing laws to remove state funding from very small schools. There are now roughly 875 school districts in Illinois; only about 120 of them have a number that currently happens to be unique across the state. (That's counting 3 or 4 state projects as districts, but not counting local special education. Across those 875 school districts, there are still around 4100 public schools.)
- School district #1 still occurs 41 times in Illinois. #2 and #3 have 23 each. #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #10 #11 #12 #15 #100 and #200 are on at least 8 districts each.
- Back in the old days, two little schoolhouses both named Oak Grove had their districts assigned #68 by their county superintendents in different parts of the state: now English Wikipedia still has to disambiguate Oak Grove School District 68 (Bartonville, Illinois) in Peoria County from Oak Grove School District 68 (Lake County, Illinois) near Chicago. That's not counting Oak Grove Accelerated School, which is not its own district — it's just one of the many city grade schools in Decatur School District 61 (Macon County).
- Before this improvement in numbering around the year 1900, it used to be even worse: the numbers were only unique to each township, each of which usually had a half dozen or more one-room or two-room schools, each with its own district.
- In addition to straight numbers, there are also these little unique gems: 2C, 4C, 24C, 30C, 33C, 60C, 70C, 72C, and 157C (none of which have Wikipedia articles); 3A, 5A, 88A, and 113A (ditto); 6J (ditto); 200U, 201U, 207U, 209U, 255U, and 365U (it's a Will County thing); and 92½, 127½, 141½, and 152½ (apparently how Cook County punishes its students).
- Now, wasn't that educational? --Closeapple (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Galleries can contain more information, but often they don't actually do so. And I checked: there really does appear to be only that one file on Commons so far that is this school district. There are five districts #90 in Illinois:
Deleted: It is against policy to have single image galleries. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Logo contains elements of originality, and a look at the uploader's other images suggests that xe is not the copyright holder. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 09:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any potential use for it. --TFCforever (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio from http://nos.nl/artikel/227164-live-conflict-in-libie.html Brimz (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Robert Kolar give me this photo to put it on Wikipedia". No OTRS. ~ Kobac (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have exclusive permision from the persons Robert Kolar and Kristina Kolar. They are classical singers who work in Croatian opera house of Rijeka. I know them private, cause I'm musician too and we are working together sometimes. Damirux —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.2.120.114 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
- You still need to send a Commons:OTRS permission confirmation e-mail. —innotata 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: And note that "to put it on Wikipedia" is not sufficient for Commons in any event. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Her husband (Robert Kolar) give me this photo to put it on Wikipedia". No OTRS. ~ Kobac (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have exclusive permision from the persons Robert Kolar and Kristina Kolar. They are classical singers who work in Croatian opera house of Rijeka. I know them private, cause I'm musician too and we are working together sometimes. Damirux
Deleted: And note that "to put it on Wikipedia" is not sufficient for Commons in any event. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"send by e-mail from autor Ivana Marija Vidović". No OTRS. ~ Kobac (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder of this professional photo? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder of this professional photo? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Andromedych = Sara Lafleur??? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is User:Alemis a copyright holder of Jean-Michel Jarre's album cover??? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Sakpata zeda = Roman Kar? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- This file has been obtained directly from Natalya Mihaylova. Vadim i z (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- And who's the author? Kobac (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Professional photo from Soviet passport or another official document. ~ Kobac (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what? The negative has been deleted 30 years ago, so after the death of A/P/Zelenkova I am the only possessor of the rights. If I have to change something please explain what.
Vadim i z (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who's the photographer? He is a real copyright holder. Do you have his permission? Kobac (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Baconanna = Viktor Derbenyov? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
From copyrighted video. ~ Kobac (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 21:00, 27 March 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder of this poster? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No source or author given ("Private collection") Plushy (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused, out of COM:SCOPE logo for non-notable band. Not sure it qualifies for {{PD-shape}} either so it might need permission anyway. Wknight94 talk 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking a photo of a copyrighted image dose not create a new copyright. This may not be Algerian Currency, but it is still a 3 dimensional copyrighted coin since the maker of the coin holds the copyright, unless coin is pre-1948 ({{PD-Algeria}}) --ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused blurry image that is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Additionally, per Argentine coins are copyrighted unless it is older then 1961. This information is missing, so this may be a copyvio--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation, taken from http://www.ghanaeyefoundation.org/privatecontent/File/Annual%20report%2005.pdf, no evidence of permission Holyoke, mass (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, text in spanish, may be on spanish wikipedia Ezarateesteban 02:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Looks scan from a book or text, maybe with CR. No indications of "own work" or permission from the author. --Andrea (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted billboard. A photo of a non-free image does not magically make said non-free image free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Andrea (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? Just have a look at the english WP-article. w:User:Chris Callas/Qcare. If it is really own work, please upload a png or svg version. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use so not out of scope Jcb (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not give up: out of scope. RE rillke questions? 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. Unused and uncategorized -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not used and no encyclopedic value is evident. Out of scope. --High Contrast (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder of this professional photo? ~ Kobac (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am the copyright holder of this photo. Are there any reasons of doubts about that? Nut1917 (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you the actual photographer? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - user tried to remove the nomination, so I don't AGF in this case - Jcb (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
this file was on Web, not own work Luudi1 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Very small low-res photograph, no exif data, unlikely to be own work Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
no permission, wrong licence 91.67.138.29 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Very small low-res photograph, typical web resolution, unlikely to be own work. Possibly copyvio from [1] (but chronology can't be determined.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Prior publication confirmed as early as 2002 - see http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20020308004936/http://travelcentralindia.com/indore.html. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong licence, no permission 91.67.138.29 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
source and author ist not sufficiently documented, wrong licence and permission 91.67.138.29 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Do not upload images that have been deleted. You may file an undeletion request if you wish. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
wrong licence, no permission 91.67.138.29 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong licence, no permission 91.67.138.29 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong licence, no permission 91.67.138.29 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong licence, no permission 91.67.138.29 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No free license specified at www.markireland.com.au Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader appears to be owner of source site, but it seems to be out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No free license specified at www.markireland.com.au Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader appears to be owner of source site, but it seems to be out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
incorrect network diagram; pls. replace with File:Pt ferv.png Tuvalkin (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use in six projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - not in use anymore. And anyways, being in use makes it even more urgent to replace, because the depicted network is frigging WRONG. (At least: Where Linha do Norte meets Linha do Vouga.) Tuvalkin (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be license laundering. See TinEye search and note that Flickr user has no uploads other than this image. – Adrignola talk 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright is printed onto the picture Topfive (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a difficult one to figure out. The watermark and the author field indicate that the author and copyright owner is Rémi Gros. Yet, the uploader Togirard also writes that he himself is the author and copyright owner. That means that the uplaoder Togirard is saying that he is actually Rémi Gros. We could take that at face value and stop there. However, the uploader's username, "Togirard", is suspiciously similar to the name of the person pictured, "Théo Girard", who is not Rémi Gros. Also, the photo is in a relatively low resolution and missing the photographic data. The strangeness of the situation is sufficient to place doubt on the licensing. Consequently, I believe this requires confirmation by OTRS e-mail directly from Rémi Gros. Either to the effect that he is the uploader or to the effect that he offers the photo under the free licenses mentioned. Without confirmation, the photo should be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not the ewa seawall it is the Diamond Head seawall. 72.234.205.11 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- So you just put a delete file tag on here without even providing proof?? Besides we have methods of renaming things, and what not if you had evidence. Shame IP, shame. Nesnad (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
_cavalcade_049.jpg){kind=link}
_cavalcade_049.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
_cavalcade_049.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, seems perfectly in scope to me. –Tryphon☂ 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Very nice picture depicting Transverse flutes, then useful, then in scope. Jeriby (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... Je ne comprends pas cette demande de suppression ! Quel en est le motif très précis ? renvoyer à la page scope est parfaitement insuffisant et n'est pas un ARGUMENT. Cette photo est prise lors d'une fête, un défilé de géants de processions et de cortèges. Les musiciennes ici, les fanfares, les personnages costumés sont tous d'accord pour être photographiés et "mis en ligne" ! Les associations locales, municipalités, offices de tourisme et les habitants sont demandeurs de mes photos. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
On fait alors de la publicité ici sur commons!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
_cavalcade_049.jpg){kind=link}
- Publicité pour quoi?! –Tryphon☂ 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
_cavalcade_049.jpg){kind=link}
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- That font policy COM:L#Fonts is a quite ambiguous as written. It states that raster rendered fonts are public domain in the US but it says nothing about vector rendered fonts being prohibited on WikiCommons. Just because raster rendered fonts are public domain in the US, it does not follow that vector render fonts are forbidden.--Sun Ladder (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vector graphics. There is no advantage compared to File:S10Image.PNG. Leyo 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete True, no svg! --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Misnamed dup. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated the file with .svg format from photoshop Williamseanohliner
- I am sorry, but it is still an embedded raster image. You can verify this here. --Leyo 22:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also dispute the licensing. The Wavefunction company logo, the product-name, and the rendered molecule all appear to be taken from the company website, which does not assert any sort of free licensing, and only the product-name could be reasonably construed as "non-copyrightable stylized text". The OTRS ticket is not from a Wavefunction email address, so I think this whole image is a copyvio (unless we can get better confirmation that uploader does have corp permission, obviously). File:S10Image.PNG is currently marked creative-commons, so if this one here is truly PD, that one there should be also: they are either literal image-content dups or else I could just recreate that one as a rendering of this one and claim it PD as derivative of this PD one. DMacks (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my role as an OTRS agent, I recontacted the the original sender of the permission statement and asked that they reply using an official "Wavefunction" email address, which they have now done. I am 100% satisfied that the actual copyright holder has granted adequate permission. Tiptoety talk 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- What about adding the OTRS ticket to File:S10Image.PNG? --Leyo 23:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- But do note Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ꜯ.svg, which was kept, so it does not seem to be as clear as that. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad resolution for own work. Art-top (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- And so what? It is a scanned photography: I taked it in a bookshop in Gevgelija. This is not here as a geographic map, but only as an illustration of a controversy between Greece & Macedonia.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You? You are not the uploader, or are you?You are. Its a 1992 published map as written on the file itself, making a photo of such a recent publication is a derivative work of something non-free. You can only upload reproductions of 2D works if the work is free of copyrights, 70 years following the authors death in many countries. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Inferior version of File:Osterman hugo.jpg. (orphaned) Quibik (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Not useful for a educational purpose. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Also:
- File:BEF 1frank 1998 front.gif
- File:BEF1-nl b front.jpg
- File:BEF5-fr b front.jpg
- File:BEF5-nl b back.jpg
- File:BEF5-nl b front.jpg
- File:BEF1-nl b back.jpg
There are two possibilities
- 1. These are Belgium currency. Per Commons:Currency# Belgium there is no exception for currency in the Belgium Copyright Law. Unless coin is older then 1941, when {{PD-old}} applies, the coin is copyrighted.
- 2. These are coins made in Belgium, but are not currency. Taking a photo of a copyrighted image dose not create a new copyright. These may not be Currency, but it is still a 3 dimensional copyrighted object (coin) since the maker of the coin holds the copyright, unless coin is pre-1948.
Ether way these is a copyright violation and image should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - old discussion that's been around years ago (can't find where, though). 1/ These are coins, not banknotes. (You can't reproduce banknotes to use them as money, no problem with the image itself - anyway, that was something of the old discussion). But these are coins. Even then one wouldn't even be able to claim copyright (PD-simple, etc....). Anyway, feel free to dive in the law texts to prove this is copyvio, instead of just making some unsourced claims. --LimoWreck (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You claim and "old discussion", but can't source one, so we can only go by what is available. Commons:Currency applies the same to "Coins" as to "Banknotes". It reads "Attention: a photograph of a coin has two requirements before it can be included. The first is that the design of the coin itself is not copyrighted, or permission has been obtained. The second is that the photographer agrees to license it under a free license. A picture of a 3D-object creates in most jurisdictions a new copyright on the picture, something that is not the case when photographing pure 2D-objects."
- These may not be banknotes, but it is still a 3 dimensional copyrighted object (coin) since the maker of the coin holds the copyright, unless coin is pre-1948. I don't see how something that required a coin masters and hundreds of hours of work to make can be "PD-simple". If that was the case then all coins would be PD-simple, which they aren’t.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be good to stick to actual arguments, instead of making things up. Your "100 hours of work" argument doesn't really help your credibility. These and these required 100 hrs as well, you won't things these are copyright, don't you? Also, your "citation" doesn't make much sense here, no one is claiming any copyright. What is law, is the ECB decision 20 March 2003. (Hope you know that one?) The National Bank (NBB) applies the same rules for old Belgian currency. See also comment here [2] - quote: "Wat de elektronische reproductie van Belgische bankbiljetten betreft (scannen, verspreiding via het Internet, etc.) baseert de Nationale Bank zich op de regels die terzake ook gelden voor de reproductie van bankbiljetten in euro (zie artikel 2.3 (f) van het Besluit van de ECB van 20 maart 2003: http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/l_07820030325nl00160019.pdf)". (see also http://suisse.juridat.be/cgi_wet/wet.pl). So, same as the Euro. --LimoWreck (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (a) there is no evidence that Belgium treats coins differently from banknotes, which have a copyright. (b) there is no evidence of a release from the photographer of this particular coin. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if there's no evidence that coins are treated differently, they are treated the same, which implies they are perfectly OK, as per ECB rules. --LimoWreck (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagged as factually incorrect (I concur), unused (replaced by File:Meldrum-pyrolysis-nucleophile.png) DMacks (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is incorrect and there is a good replacement. Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Ed. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No source information, tagged as own work by uploader but obviously not. Tagged as PD-Russia, but insufficient information to determine current copyright status. —innotata 21:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a three dimenstional work of art and can only be used under fair-use provision. Therefore the pic should not be on the Commons. Diannaa (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
non valid source, no permission to use this file, original source is in http://www.inquba.com.pe/ --Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Iranian reunification... proposed by whom? Proposed by the uploader? Thats not in scope of the project. Is there any noteworthy scholarly opinion dealing with this poposal that possibly has the chance to be included in an educational description of this proposal? If not this file will fall out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's not used anywhere (for a good reason) so the questions remain unanswered. Unify Iran and delete file along with the Afghan fantasy. NVO (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Iranian reunification... proposed by whom? Proposed by the uploader? Thats not in scope of the project. Is there any noteworthy scholarly opinion dealing with this poposal that possibly has the chance to be included in an educational description of this proposal? If not this file will fall out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a graphic artwork (apparently by Ms. Haring - died 1990) on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this artwork needed. I can make a crop - that would be fine Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a graphic artwork (apparently by Ms. Haring - died 1990) on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this artwork needed. I can upload a crop - that would be fine Saibo (Δ) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
![23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/21#c-Saibo-2011-03-21T23:31:00.000Z-File:Madonna_performs_"Into_the_Groove"_in_Sofia.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
![15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/21#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-03-28T15:52:00.000Z-File:Madonna_performs_"Into_the_Groove"_in_Sofia.JPG){kind=link}
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; I am correcting a malformed request by User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a graphic artwork (apparently by Ms. Haring - died 1990) on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this artwork needed. I can upload a crop - that would be fine Saibo (Δ) 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed. I can upload a crop - that would be fine. Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed. I can upload a crop - that would be fine. Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; I am fixing a malformed request by User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a graphic artwork (apparently by Ms. Haring - died 1990) on a big screen in the background (no de minimis - clearly interfering with the foreground) → permission from the photographer of this artwork needed. I can upload a crop - that would be fine Saibo (Δ) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Picture of the album. Non free image. (not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:Deansfa). – Adrignola talk 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that http://www.sajed.ir/new/ has the right to publish this file under a GNU licence. Consider that the GNU licence even did not exist in 1982.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment. Similar dynosaur deletion requests continue at Commons:Deletion requests/2011/03/22. NVO (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
kasacja konta Luudi1 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nominator seems not to have intended nomination Jcb (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
ann File:Sede del Ministerio Fiscal.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I am Autor. "Testus" Participant will not let me leave a signature in the picture. He removes my drawing from all pages. I'm not going to prove to Wikipedia - that the global error - do not allow authors to sign under their own works. Sorry that we met. Good luck! And more often think about the authors - and what I see, you think only about the archivist. Igor Barbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbe Igor (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2011 March 21 (UTC)
- Keep Every group, every culture, has its rules. By uploading to us under an unrevokable Free license, you agreed to allow us to edit it as we needed. Personally, I'm not profoundly concerned about the signature, but I can't imagine anyone being willing to use it with the yellow bar on the bottom; nowhere I know of is that something that artists get to demand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete ..................................................................Sorry i work from iphone on the road. I dnt know progr rules. My Englsh is very bad. I have corporation in America. Hause on the bish of Black sea. Penthouse 430 sq.m. In the centr of Moscow. I'm still alive. I earn money with their own hands. Seals.pro. Yellow stripe main motivation for issuing the license. Yellow stripe of the original plan. Excuse me. Without a yellow band, I would never file you do not give away! Never! I beg you to delete my files. You are decent people and must understand that I was wrong. I thought that Vicki can become a platform for my self-promotion. I broke the rules of archivists - working with the dead. I'm still alive. Delete my file! Pls! I dont know tild on iphone. Thnks! Igor Barbe. Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A better image exists: File:Greater coat of arms of the Russian empire.png. The image uploaded by Barbe Igor has no value. BrightRaven (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That file is poorly sourced, and might well not be PD; I've nominated it for deletion. Besides, just because another image exists is no reason to delete this one. –Tryphon☂ 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coats of arms are not subject to copyright in most countries, including Russia. See Template:PD-RU-exempt. BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ask that you please remove my files - without any debate. Who are the people that speak out about my work? Why do it? The opinion of these people - let interested in their mothers. For example BrightRaven wrote - "The image uploaded by Barbe Igor has no value". You just think! Figure was made over two years and it fixed about thirty gross mistakes. How many roses should be in the arms of Finland? Where directed halberd Yaroslavsky? What color is the substrate of the Astrakhan crown? You're laughing:))) And, here, this man - BrightRaven, in fact - absolutely nothing, zero - to speak out. My assistant removing files from all the pages - Note that with the 10-15 pages a file is deleted BrightRaven. Why such a discussion? This is also an eyesore! Deformity, which satisfied a freak.Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ask all sensible SPEAKS FOR REMOVAL - FACT ABOUT YOU ask the author - Just do not discuss anything - PRICE this discussion - one cent!Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I beg to satisfy the author's request for people to type BrightRaven - do not use my file to their advantage.Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coats of arms are not subject to copyright in most countries, including Russia. See Template:PD-RU-exempt. BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That file is poorly sourced, and might well not be PD; I've nominated it for deletion. Besides, just because another image exists is no reason to delete this one. –Tryphon☂ 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It seems the image uploaded by Barbe Igor is slightly different from the existing one. BrightRaven (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Delete a file is not necessary.
On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982
In this letter - he criticized the many gross mistakes in the picture of Robert Ivanovich Malanitchev. At the present moment is initiated his replacement to this picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Someone should remove the yellow bar and signature from the image Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire.1882-1883 Autor Artist I.BARBE, 2006 1500x1650.jpg
[edit]
I am Autor. "Testus" Participant will not let me leave a signature in the picture. He removes my drawing from all pages. I'm not going to prove to Wikipedia - that the global error - do not allow authors to sign under their own works. Sorry that we met. Good luck! And more often think about the authors - and what I see, you think only about the archivist. Igor Barbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbe Igor (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2011 March 21 (UTC)
- Keep Every group, every culture, has its rules. By uploading to us under an unrevokable Free license, you agreed to allow us to edit it as we needed. Personally, I'm not profoundly concerned about the signature, but I can't imagine anyone being willing to use it with the yellow bar on the bottom; nowhere I know of is that something that artists get to demand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete ..................................................................Sorry i work from iphone on the road. I dnt know progr rules. My Englsh is very bad. I have corporation in America. Hause on the bish of Black sea. Penthouse 430 sq.m. In the centr of Moscow. I'm still alive. I earn money with their own hands. Seals.pro. Yellow stripe main motivation for issuing the license. Yellow stripe of the original plan. Excuse me. Without a yellow band, I would never file you do not give away! Never! I beg you to delete my files. You are decent people and must understand that I was wrong. I thought that Vicki can become a platform for my self-promotion. I broke the rules of archivists - working with the dead. I'm still alive. Delete my file! Pls! I dont know tild on iphone. Thnks! Igor Barbe. Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A better image exists: File:Greater coat of arms of the Russian empire.png. The image uploaded by Barbe Igor has no value. BrightRaven (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That file is poorly sourced, and might well not be PD; I've nominated it for deletion. Besides, just because another image exists is no reason to delete this one. –Tryphon☂ 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coats of arms are not subject to copyright in most countries, including Russia. See Template:PD-RU-exempt. BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ask that you please remove my files - without any debate. Who are the people that speak out about my work? Why do it? The opinion of these people - let interested in their mothers. For example BrightRaven wrote - "The image uploaded by Barbe Igor has no value". You just think! Figure was made over two years and it fixed about thirty gross mistakes. How many roses should be in the arms of Finland? Where directed halberd Yaroslavsky? What color is the substrate of the Astrakhan crown? You're laughing:))) And, here, this man - BrightRaven, in fact - absolutely nothing, zero - to speak out. My assistant removing files from all the pages - Note that with the 10-15 pages a file is deleted BrightRaven. Why such a discussion? This is also an eyesore! Deformity, which satisfied a freak.Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ask all sensible SPEAKS FOR REMOVAL - FACT ABOUT YOU ask the author - Just do not discuss anything - PRICE this discussion - one cent!Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I beg to satisfy the author's request for people to type BrightRaven - do not use my file to their advantage.Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coats of arms are not subject to copyright in most countries, including Russia. See Template:PD-RU-exempt. BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That file is poorly sourced, and might well not be PD; I've nominated it for deletion. Besides, just because another image exists is no reason to delete this one. –Tryphon☂ 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It seems the image uploaded by Barbe Igor is slightly different from the existing one. BrightRaven (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this file. He was replaced by two others - no dice, and with yellow plaqet with less information. THIS CAN AND NEED TO REMOVE.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
British, and published less than 70 years ago, so as far as I know no chance it is public domain. —innotata 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Adventures_Robin_Hood_opening.png&action=edit
- From P-01: UK Copyright Law fact sheet: 6. Duration of copyright: The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as... v. Broadcasts and cable programmes: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made. See also [3] and [4]. --MithrandirAgain (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll ask on the village pump to see if anybody can confirm and get a tag created if this is so—I found this since {{PD-UK}} places this in PD tag needs updating. —innotata 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is not only a copyright on the broadcast, but a copyright on the film, too: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: 5B Films. (1)In this Part “film” means a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced. - 13B Duration of copyright in films.
(1)The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a film.
(2)Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of the following persons—
(a)the principal director,
(b)the author of the screenplay,
(c)the author of the dialogue, or
(d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film;
subject as follows.....: Deletesугсго 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)- Complicated. Anyhow, there's a another file from this show at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_March_21#File:CastRH.JPG. —innotata 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is not only a copyright on the broadcast, but a copyright on the film, too: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: 5B Films. (1)In this Part “film” means a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced. - 13B Duration of copyright in films.
- At Commons talk:Licensing#UK sounds etc, Carl Lindberg said that in 1996 the U. K. retroactively restored everything to 70 years p.m.a. —innotata 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll ask on the village pump to see if anybody can confirm and get a tag created if this is so—I found this since {{PD-UK}} places this in PD tag needs updating. —innotata 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK the recording right is a neighboring right that covers inherently public domain works, such as remakes of old music. The film itself is covered by copyright, which is 70 pma. This titlecard doesn't seem to be eligible for copyright though. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 70 years pma -- although the card is close to ineligible, there is a photograph in the background. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, it says that this can't be hosted here until 2020 due to Russian copyright law. Is this so? If this needs to be deleted, please make sure the English Wikipedia's versions of the file and description are kept. —innotata 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Unclear why this is thought to be in the public domain. If it is due to copyright expiration, then see COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings. All sound recordings created before 2023 enter the public domain in the United States on 1 January 2022 and can't be on Commons until then. See also {{PD-US-record}}. Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It's in the public domain because it's from the Musopen project and released into the PD by the musician/recorder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep The file has been here for years, and was once a "featured sound", therefore this has to be in the public domain. But let's assume we are stupid and somehow missed it, the source of which this audio can be found is in Musopen. For the direct link, see here, of which in the description thing on Google search, it says "Download royalty free music in mp3 for Karine Gilanyan for free, and without copyrights from Musopen.org." therefore, we have proof that this doesn't have any copyright on it. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Please delete File:JPS1917-Torah.djvu and File:JPS1917-Latter Prophets.djvu, both of which are subsections of this file. Now that the full scan has been uploaded they are both no longer necessary. They were originally meant to be used in this partial fashion as part of a project on the English Wikisource, but that project has already been superseded and completed elsewhere. (not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:Dovi). – Adrignola talk 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment The problem is that both File:JPS1917-Torah.djvu and File:JPS1917-Latter Prophets.djvu are used in Wikisource -- wikisource:Index:JPS1917-Torah.djvu and wikisource:Index:JPS1917-Latter Prophets.djvu. I propose to Keep these files to not to broke something. Trycatch (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)- That makes sense. Let's leave this for now with the understanding that the files should remain until the English Wikisource project is brought up to date and no longer uses them. Dovi (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
unusable image, COM:SCOPE abf «Cabale!» 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
no pic of this plane at night or at Malaga. --MKY661 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- So you really suggest to keep an image of each airplane around the world at each airport, no matter of quality, educational purpose or whatever? Excuse me, but I have to disagree abf «Cabale!» 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Renominate - per ABF, there is no possible use for this image. The plane is bloody invisible for crying out loud, it's barely a step up from a photo of a black cat in a coal cellar at night. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I completely agree: it´s an useless picture. --Andrea (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete completely agree. --ELEKHHT 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
We have six other photos of this plane. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in the UAE. 84.61.186.139 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep COM:DM. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. City view. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Very nice cityscape, and clear case of de minimis. "mister duralex" seems not to have learnt about it... Jeriby (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above, de minimis applies. --ELEKHHT 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
No FOP in the UAE. 84.61.170.180 09:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same effect, same answer, it is a cityscape, then de minimis (COM:DM). And it's very unusual to open a deletion request twice, with exactly the same reason. When it's closed, it's closed, when it's kept, it's kept... Jeriby (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Jeriby, opening a DR a second time after a keep, particularly a non-administrative keep, is much the same as opening an un-deletion request on a delete. This is a case where the de minimis is right on the edge -- not at all obvious. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
With that said, however - kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Maps of municipalities in Vallès Oriental
[edit]Sant Quirze Safaja map (one pattern):
- File:Puigdolena.png
- File:El Soler de Bertí.png
- File:La Serra (Bertí).png
- File:Cal Rosso.png
- File:Can Rombella.png
- File:Cal Quitzo.png
- File:L'Onyó (Bertí).png
- File:El Sot del Grau.png
- File:L'Ullar (Bertí).png
- File:Can Volant.png
- File:Cabanyals (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Barnils (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Can Riera (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Can Gall (Sant Quirze Safaja) .png
- File:Cal Colomer (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Cal Carabrut.png
- File:Can Niolda.png
- File:Cal Mestret (Bertí).png
- File:Ca l'Esmolet (Bertí).png
- File:Can Magre (Bertí).png
- File:Barnils (Bertí).png
- File:El Traver (Bertí).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Cal Pastor (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Can Torrents (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Can Sants (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Els Plans (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Can Bernat (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Cal Mestre (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Les Ferreries (Sant Quirze Safaja) .png
- File:Les Ferreries (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Les Torres (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Les Clotes (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Plana Serra.png
- File:El Cerdà (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:El Badó.png
- File:Les Saleres (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Masia Coll de Poses.png
- File:Pregona (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:El Maset.png
- File:La Corona (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Molí de Llobateres (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Molí de Baix (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Les Torres (urbanització).png
- File:Les Clotes (urbanització).png
- File:Els Pinars del Badó.png
- File:El Pla del Badó.png
- File:Can Romera (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:El Solà del Boix (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:Bertí.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Roser de Puigdolena.png
- File:Sant Antoni de Pàdua de les Torres.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Roser del Maset.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Carme de Poses.png
- File:El Serrà (Sant Quirze Safaja).png
- File:La Mare de Déu de la Divina Providència del Serrà.png
- File:El Sant Crist del Clascar.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Roser de la Rovireta .png
- File:El Sant Crist del Càmping l'Illa.png
- File:Sant Pere de Bertí.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Carme del Badó.png
- File:La Mare de Déu del Roser de Barnils.png
- File:Serracarbassa i Serratacó.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Castellcir maps:
- File:Mont-ras (Castellcir).png
- File:Les Solanes (Castellcir).png
- File:Les Cases de Fusta.png
- File:La Clariana (Castellcir).png
- File:La Caseta del Giol.png
- File:El Serrat (Castellcir).png
- File:El Puig (Castellcir).png
- File:Can Gregori i Can Joanet (Castellcir).png
- File:Cal Tomàs (Castellcir).png
- File:Cal Manel.png
- File:Molí del Mig (Castellcir).png
- File:Molí del Bosc (Castellcir).png
- File:La Casa Nova de la Vileta.png
- File:La Codina (Castellcir).png
- File:La Vileta (Castellcir).png
- File:Cal Fantasia.png
- File:Mas Torroella (Castellcir).png
- File:Casanova del Castell.png
- File:La Tuna.png
- File:Casa del Guarda (Castellcir).png
- File:La Rectoria (Castellcir).png
- File:El Giol (Castellcir).png
- File:Torre de Serracaixeta.png
- File:Serracaixeta.png
- File:Puigdomènec (Castellcir).png
- File:El Vilardell (Castellcir).png
- File:El Bonifet.png
- File:Les Berengueres (Castellcir).png
- File:Sant Jeroni (Castellcir).png
- File:La Roca (Castellcir).png
- File:Ca l'Antoja (Castellcir).png
- File:Can Sants.png
- File:El Molí Vell (Castellcir).png
- File:Mas Montserrat (Castellcir).png
- File:La Casa Nova del Verdeguer.png
- File:El Verdeguer (Castellcir).png
- File:Esplugues (Castellcir).png
- File:El Prat (Castellcir).png
- File:El Prat (urbanització).png
- File:El Solà del Boix (Castellcir).png
- File:Carrer de l'Amargura (Castellcir).png
- File:La Roureda (Castellcir).png
- File:La Penyora (Castellcir).png
- File:Santa Coloma Sasserra.png
- File:Les Vinyes (Marfà).png
- File:El Saiolic.png
- File:Casa de Coll de Marfà.png
- File:Pujalt (Marfà).png
- File:Molí de Marfà.png
- File:Molí de Brotons.png
- File:Vall de Marfà.png
- File:El Xei (Marfà).png
- File:Els Sors (Marfà).png
- File:La Datzira.png
- File:La Closella (Marfà).png
- File:Sant Miquel d'Argelaguer.png
- File:El Bosc (Castellcir).png
- File:La Torrassa dels Moros.png
- File:Castell de Castellcir.png
- File:Sant Andreu de Castellcir.png
- File:La Talladella.png
- File:La Mare de Déu de la Tosca.png
- File:Santa Maria de Castellcir.png
- File:Marfà.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Granera maps:
- File:Cal Rossell (Granera).png
- File:Capella de Bigues.png
- File:Santa Cecília de Granera.png
- File:Castell de Granera.png
- File:Sant Martí de Granera.png
- File:Puigdomènec (Granera).png
- File:La Païssa (Granera).png
- File:L'Óssol.png
- File:Can Miquel (Granera).png
- File:Cal Martí (Granera).png
- File:El Marcet (Granera).png
- File:La Manyosa (Granera).png
- File:Els Girbaus.png
- File:El Calbó (Granera).png
- File:El Carner (Granera).png
- File:El Clapers (Granera).png
- File:Casalot de Coll d'Ases.png
- File:Can Creus (Granera).png
- File:Trens.png
- File:La Torre (Granera).png
- File:Tantinyà.png
- File:El Solà del Sot.png
- File:Salvatges.png
- File:El Salamó.png
- File:La Riera.png
- File:Biguetes.png
- File:Bigues.png
- File:L'Agulló.png
- File:La Roca.png
- File:El Coll.png
- File:L'Otzet.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There is a high probability that those files are not "own work" of Claudefà (Gustau Erill i Pinyot). Low quality version of maps with many details, probably copied from some government sources. Claudefà said that files were created in MS Paint (Catalan: Mapa fet amb el Paint de Windows.). We can clearly say that only a mark of a village or a city is given in MS Paint, but base is from another, probably copyrighted file. Those maps cannot be made in MS Paint. JDavid (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doncs si ho veieu tan clar, esborreu-ho tot.--Claudefà (Discussió) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (moved from DR Talk)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad source, bad author - on map: "The "Gulag" camps, 1954, map my S.I.Manoliu since works from Je.Z.Rachinski, A.B.Roguinski, V.A.Krakhotin, A.Ju.Daniel, I.G.Okhotin, E.B.Zhemkova & N.B.Mirza of the "Memorial" foudation, in "Russkie & Kitaie" nr.17, ed. "Karta", Moscow 2007." Art-top (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the problem ? My sources are : works of Je.Z.Rachinski, A.B.Roguinski, V.A.Krakhotin, A.Ju.Daniel, I.G.Okhotin, E.B.Zhemkova & N.B.Mirza of the "Memorial" foudation, in "Russkie & Kitaie" nr.17, ed. "Karta", Moscow 2007; the author of the map is me, with Photoshop. I can re-draw my work with another name & reintroduce, if you prefer. I'm expecting your opinion, --Mitica-Misha (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you are the author of this map, please explain:
- why your map has the following inscription:
- "Russian in China, № 17" ("Русские в Китае № 17") - what is it? number of the issue? - Yes
- "Reason for implementation: Journal 'Map', Ryazan Memorial, Memorial Ekaterinburg, 127051, Moscow, Maly coach lane, 12" ("Основание для выполнения: Журнал "Карта" Рязанский мемориал, Екатеринбургский мемориал 127051, Москва, Малый каретный переулок, д. 12") - why the address of the organization? What is this reason? - Because they are one of my sources.
- "Project Leader: J.Z. Raczynski, A.B. Roginsky, V.A. Krahotin, A.Yu. Daniel, N.G. Okhotin, E.B. Zhemkova, N.B. Mirza" ("Руководитель проекта: Я. З. Рачинский, А. Б. Рогинский, В. А. Крахотин, А. Ю. Даниель, Н. Г. Охотин, Е. Б. Жемкова, Н. Б. Мирза") - the leaders of the project? Project Wikipedia? - No: the project to realise a compilation of the camps & their geographic repartition : you can verify this easier as me, if you live in Russia. If my sources are wrong, I can modify the original map.
- Why are some inscriptions in Russian, part English? - My idea, for russians and others people.
- Why use the logo of the site "The victims of political terror in the USSR" ("Жертвы политического террора в СССР")? - Because they work around this question, & realise some maps of the Gulag.
- Why did the author maps indicated Spiridon MANOLIU, not you? - Миша/Mitica is one of my students, and you can contact me on cepleanu@orange.fr for more explanations and i can send to you my original map. See you later,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- --Art-top (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteI find it very difficult to believe that this user created this large and complex map of Russia without using any base map. For one thing, that would be very hard work. For a second, it would be dumb, as there are several open source base maps available that would eliminate a lot of work. I think that either
- he does not understand the fact that he must give explicit credit to the source of the base map and not claim it as "own work" or
- he is simply not telling the truth above.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Jim and Art-top. His explanations did´nt convince me at all. --Andrea (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mr.Den (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Andrea (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted stage set. FOP does not apply as it is not permanently installed. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not an image of the stage but of the ongoing performance. -Nard the Bard 15:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I would prefer keeping it as appplying FOP here feels like stretching the point too much. The performance is what is displayed here, not the stage. Legolas2186 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of performers on stage. --Simonxag (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No need to go overboard. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a graphic artwork on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this artwork needed Saibo (Δ) 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
@the discussion above: the artwork by Ms. Haring clearly changes the mood of the image - why else does Madonna put it in the background?? This is not Commons:de minimis. I can upload a tight crop of it - that would be fine. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. folks, this is not even close to DM -- if anything, the performers are DM to the background. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)