Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Flickrwashing. Iconic image, used as a book cover [1]; also avaliable online at larger sizes: [2]. Photographer was John Rankin Waddell: [3]. Lupo 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://entrelinhasebotoes.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/vivienne-classica.jpg){kind=link}
Delete I apologize for my infelicitous uploading. I had not done enough to check it. I'm sorry, can you please delete this file or speedlydelete? -- Degueulasse (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I uploaded the wrong image. Bylouis (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD ("is a clear copyright violation") as it is an accidental upload of the .hk domain registrar logo, and its uploader immediately self-nominated the file for deletion within 10 minutes, so even the uploader believes this file will not receive sufficient permission for Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per uploader request. Rehman 05:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
likely copyright violation: Flickr washing. Same Flickr user [4] also had this, which according to [5] was a commercial AP photo Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, its from The Times. Delete. Kobac (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
baby 190.166.112.120 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Español: ¿Qué es el "baby" en Wiki? No entiendo muy bien el español. ¿Existe una cláusula equivalente en es.wikipedia.org que se puede leer de entender?English: What is "baby" on Wiki? I don't understand Spanish very well. Is there an equivalent term on es.wikipedia.org that one can read to understand?(The nominating IP address is in the Dominican Republic, so I am assuming that "baby" is a literal translation of some Wikipedia/Commons term in Spanish.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In the Dominican Republic 'baby' just means 'baby'. I think some Dominican kid was bored and was playing around. This is not a serious nomination. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no permission for a free use of this image by the Bundesarchiv. The applied licence cannot apply here. 79.237.185.73 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-621-2943-33, Luftwaffensoldat an leichter Flak im Hafen.jpg. MKFI (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down duplicate of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-621-2943-33, Luftwaffensoldat an leichter Flak im Hafen.jpg High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Because it is not in use ! Vek0 92 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Unclear whether the uploader meant (or has permission) to license this in the first place and/or has personality rights to this intimate video which, at best, was only identified as "own work", not a video of the uploader himself. It is the same as File:Penis Erection.ogg uploaded later the same day by a different account with "This video is only for educational reasons and should not be used for any other purposes." then nominated with the reason "It is not in use ! And dont want to be here." See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: "normally considered unacceptable: ... Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life" and "Normally not OK: ... Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)". --Closeapple (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
... Vek0 92 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request -- Common Good (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not in use ! And dont want to be here. VideoEducation (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD: Clearly licensed only under a non-free license (like fair use, noncommercial or permission-only), as its text says "This video is only for educational reasons and should not be used for any other purposes." --Closeapple (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request -- Common Good (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
first version of picture is wrong (other person): nominated by User:Andrejj but had wrong template Closeapple (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This appears to be a request to remove the old version of this picture, not the current version. Is it easier for an admin to delete the old version, or to re-upload under a different name and delete this one? --Closeapple (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: version as of 22:16, 16 March 2011 has been deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Because it is not in use ! Vek0 92 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Unclear whether the uploader meant (or has permission) to license this in the first place and/or has personality rights to this intimate video which, at best, was only identified as "own work", not a video of the uploader himself. It is the same as File:Penis Erection.ogg uploaded later the same day by a different account with "This video is only for educational reasons and should not be used for any other purposes." then nominated with the reason "It is not in use ! And dont want to be here." See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: "normally considered unacceptable: ... Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life" and "Normally not OK: ... Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)". --Closeapple (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
... Vek0 92 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request -- Common Good (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Nikolai_Argunov_(1771-c1829)_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg
[edit]_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private photoshop experiment. The given source of the original has nothing to with this overwriting. Btw.: This is the third try to get rid of this, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nikolai_Argunov_(1771-c1829)_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg , history 78.55.240.77 11:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg){kind=link}
- Kept. I find and upload better version --Butko (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good solution. Thanks, Mutter Erde 78.55.240.77 18:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Jcb (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Mainspace user template. Suggest userfying. Rehman 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Neutral on userification, but there's no reason to delete. The only other person than Tiptoey that holds both CU and OS here is also a 'crat, so while there's only one potential user at the moment, there's no reason that can't change a fortnight from today. Courcelles (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Courcelles Ezarateesteban 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don J Cargo 02:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of COM:SCOPE SV1XV (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Strongly doubt "own work", at the very least this certainly needs COM:OTRS. Jmabel ! talk 05:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- delete. Uploader contribs' on en-wiki suggest that this account is unrelated to the developer or the architect, so there's no OTRS in sight. NVO (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, just another Skyscrapercity {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not in scope; no educational value, not in use Prosfilaes (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This was never intended to be used in articles but looks to have been an idea for Wikipedia:Service awards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's intented for internal use on Wikimedia Commons. SV1XV (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep barnstars are in scope. MKFI (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused orphaned file with no educational value. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: no further educational use; a few other sample logos already available on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Redundant page to Commons:Sandbox. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Redirected to Commons:Sandbox Ezarateesteban 00:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 10:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted map 92.226.255.31 07:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unclear copyright, obviously not "own work". SV1XV (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless permission from the actual author is shown, this is a copyright violation as Brody did not take the picture since he is in the picture. M.O. Stevens 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Israeli copyright laws do not require that the person take the picture. It is enough that the picture was taken at that person's order, or request. Therefore, Mr. Brody is the owner of the copyrights of this picture, and he can rightfully give permission to use it.Golf Bravo (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but are we dealing with Israeli law? Hard to know without details of who was the photographer or where it was first published. Also, how do we know the picture was taken at his request? This looks like a standard press photo from a press photographer covering the game, which would make it seem unlikely Brody requested the photographer take the picture. If this was an AP or UPI photographer, despite any instructions from Brody, the work would in all likelihood belong to the AP or UPI or other media outlet the photographer was hired by as a work for hirer. Not to mention, I don't even see an OTRS ticket where Brody gave permission. M.O. Stevens 05:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No use in future 俠刀行 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, licensing looks OK, and the image looks useful. Lupo 09:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Within COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree. I probaly think the name should be changeable. It's a historical picture and the year is missed. Now I have to rename it, the filename has already built so that I can't recover from.--俠刀行 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is no valid reason for a deletion request. If you believe something is really wrong with this name, you may use the {{Rename}} tag and specify a new name. Some admin will take care of the renaming. SV1XV (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your telling. Best wishes.--俠刀行 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused orphaned file with no educational value. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: could illustrate Mitsubishi L300, rear windshield wipers (as in description), and a normal Philippine license plate. I don't see better versions of any of these in the file's categories. --Closeapple (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Largely unused template, except for single Commons page (translated) and unlikely to be used due to template coding and length. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
photograph made circa. 1970, still under copyright. see http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/NAVYM0785A/07 Rcbutcher (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Still covered under Crown Copyright. Courcelles (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a content which is supposedly copyrighted + not covered by any FOP. A.S. 09:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
much too small 87.123.85.157 11:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Useless at this scale, even ignoring that the logo is copyrighted it was introduced in 2005. Courcelles (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably a misunderstanding. Uploader declares all his scans as "own works", including historic photos, book covers and newspapers. 78.55.240.77 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Unlikely that uploader has copyright permission. English translation is "photo of Joseph Cotten with Patricia Medina, sent by her to (his/her) family of Gran Canaria", so presumably copyright is that of Medina (born in UK, likely UK-Spain citizen, moved to the U.S., possibly naturalized U.S. citizen from marriage, still alive) or Cotten (U.S. citizen usually in the U.S., died in 1994). No chain of permission from photographer to uploader. No evidence of country of creation, country of first publication, or copyright notice in first publication, so not only no permission, but no way to salvage through the public domain either. TinEye has no hits. --Closeapple (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: pure advertisement; out of scope; no realistic explanation of relationship between artist and uploader to establish permission. --Closeapple (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of File:UofGuelph-JohnstonHall.jpg, except with the contrast all messed up. Wknight94 talk 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. No evidence of a cc license. Abiyoyo (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. No evidence of a cc license. Abiyoyo (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Unclear source. Given web site is no longer in operation. No evidence this is really a U.S. Mint production. Wknight94 talk 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: See Congressional Gold Medal. This medal has "Act of Congress" on its face, so it is either real, and therefore created by the US Mint, or a very good forgery Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
non-free logo, possibly copyrighted Trijnstel (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: the user also uploaded several non-free logos on nl.wikipedia along with this one, see here. Trijnstel (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
non-free screenshot Plushy (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: Picture was part of a deleted article about an irrelevant school band. Erik1980 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no permission for a free use of this image by the Bundesarchiv. The applied licence cannot apply here. 79.237.185.73 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I did not find image 101I-294-1548-05A from our Bundesarchive donation collection. We might have to delete this one. MKFI (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
no author, no credible source --MGuf (d) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: main web page says "© 2009 Vitória Futebol Clube® é uma marca registada. Todos os direitos reservados." No evidence this logo is licensed as GPL or part of a GPL program as claimed. --Closeapple (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
definitely not PD-US-unpublished, and no other proof of free license Prince Kassad (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The source gives no hint of a free license, and the current tag is clearly impossible, Ms. Chase having been born in 1956. Courcelles (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality. I reverted this image as the 2007 one was incorrect - its "1,7-bis (4-hydroxy- 3-methoxyphenyl)..." - i.e both hydroxys are on the 4 position. but the quality is poor so I made a SVG from scratch - File:Curcumin.svg, checking the structure at Reaxys and other sites before uploading. Links have been changed to point to the SVG version, so this is now unused. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Plenty of alternatives given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I dislike only having svg when there had been a png, but Yikrazuul finds lots of png alternatives too. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Probaly sand box. Uploaded from facebook. Firt upload on this file name was an other pic. Not used. Not other upload by this user Oxam Hartog 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
PD-Austria only applies to simple photographs, and I doubt that this image can be considered simple enough. Prince Kassad (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
unknown people. Out of scope Oxam Hartog 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I found them; the uploader tried to add the description by doing a second upload. Added better description, date, and categories. --Closeapple (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Owner of hair studio seems not a sufficient reason to be on commons especially when there is not an article on the subject on en:. Besides, this file don't show really the activity of this hairdresser. Oxam Hartog 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
blank image; not used. Aleator (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: no educational use, etc.: appears to be an old failed upload; 1-color rectangle. --Closeapple (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
this is a figure from a common introductory astronomy textbook (I think Bennett et al.), apparently drawn from a link without attribution 72.95.242.52 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, also fake source. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- How can you know it's copyrighted? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Art is copyrighted by default. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure, but I think the geometry is simple enough to be considered PD-simple --Beao 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
image is reportedly owned by an Australian but is of an instrument built by a man from Wisconsin (see http://www.dennishavlena.com/) I think that the PD-self licence is clearly incorrect. Peripitus (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- see the image at http://www.dennishavlena.com/db2.jpg and the discussion page mentioning its construction at http://www.dennishavlena.com/db.htm - Peripitus (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of mural in the United States, and mural will not be out of copyright until 2052. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, derivative work of copyrighted painting. Courcelles (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Question: This is a 1950s painting by an American, in fixed form and presented publicly in the U.S. prior to 1964, right? If COM:COPYRIGHT#United States is accurate, that would mean that this painting is in the public domain unless it has a copyright notice and its copyright was renewed. Or am I missing something about what constitutes "publication" for a mural? --Closeapple (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Mural is almost certainly out of copyright right now; it needed a copyright notice and renewal. But the photograph is too tightly cropped to see if there's a copyright notice, and manually searching the copyright renewals is almost impossible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Renewal of 1950s work would be after 1978, which is an easy search. It was not renewed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This mural may infringe on the mural artist's copyright. Unless we can determine its copyright status, we must delete it. The artist dies in 1982. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. If the artist still holds the copyright, then death-plus rules govern. But if this was a work-for-hire, then the George Washington National Masonic Memorial Association may hold the copyright. Then it becomes an issue if the GWNMMA renewed the copyright at the appropriate time, or if they registered under 1978 "automatic plus-95 years" rule. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- You closed this several months ago with a keep; what's changed? Why are you reopening this DR?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was a little bit surprised to see that, too. I was also surprised to see the keep close before, however. At this point, as the nominator for the first discussion and the person who took the photo, I think I'm thoroughly lost on where this process is heading. Thus I'm abstaining. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nom. My apologies to all of you for wasting your time. As you will see in the log, I have nominated a number of murals for deletion. I thought I was careful to check for prior "kept" actions (which are shown on the talk page), but clearly I missed this one.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No information on publication, which is needed to determine copyright status —innotata 22:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we should search for some then, instead of just deleting. Found this: [6] Or perhaps this: "The U.S. Fish Commission's ship Albatross visited Laysan in 1902, and a very complete record of the bird life is presented by Dr. Walter K. Fisher, in the Fish Commission Bulletin for 1903."[7] Perhaps it can be found there, but I'll keep on searching. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely one of these plates mentioned here:
The Auk, Vol. XX
rf
Plate XIV.
Kic. 1. ACKOCEl'IIALUS KAMI 1.1 A K I.S AN'I) N KS I
Fig. 2. NEST OF ACROCEPHALUS FAMIIJAKI.S.
Vol. XXn Yis,H¥.K, Birds of Laysa7i Island. 39^[8] FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's a different copy of the photo in the Auk, here. However, there is no way I would have found this from the available information, and the copy currently here looks from the description to have been taken from an unpublished original, so I'm not sure if it too is public domain. —innotata 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I doubt we'll ever know, it has probably been published in several PD sources ("Fish Commission Bulletin for 1903" for instance), one of which might be the source of the copy in question. But really, the differences would be minuscule anyway, this image is PD for sure. But if it bugs you, just replace it with another copy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- And by the way, appears that material from that Archive.org file could be useful for Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I doubt we'll ever know, it has probably been published in several PD sources ("Fish Commission Bulletin for 1903" for instance), one of which might be the source of the copy in question. But really, the differences would be minuscule anyway, this image is PD for sure. But if it bugs you, just replace it with another copy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Probably the sole free image of this style of object. Very high resolution lossless image at that. (Smaller version apparently uploaded on top to allow thumbnails to work; Commons help recommends this somewhere.) Appears to be produced by Juan Jesus Ruiz Calafell of Benidorm, Alicante, Spain, so permission to license is plausable. Blatant advertising in description should be chopped, though. CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensing means that derivative images can be made. --Closeapple (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, sounds reasonable. I'm fine with keeping the image if people feel that it can have educational value. Even in that case the description will have to go. Jafeluv (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: removed advertising in description Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement. The image looks lifted from the hotel's website, and at this resolution is unlikely to be useful in illustrating anything at all. Jafeluv (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: no educational purpose: unused simple company logo, not even precisely the same as the one in use on that company's website; primarily exists as advertising in the description rather than as a file image of any use. --Closeapple (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright information suspect. Uploader claims "own work" as source, and then states copyright was given to him by an anonymous person, which would mean it is not his own work. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:MBBLogo.jpg. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect License; compare with de:Datei:Georg-Wilhelm-von-Siemens.jpg.No evidence that the unknown author is dead for more than 70 years. JuTa (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Newspaper or book scan, believekevin on Flickr is not the author. Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Flickrwashed. Courcelles (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Kungfuman (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, {{nopenis}}. Courcelles (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Ezarate per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Manderzwicky -- Common Good (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not urinating, out of scope, spam. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Ezarate per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Manderzwicky -- Common Good (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Ezarate (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 06:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 10:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
delete 87.123.85.157 11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Third version is also out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete compared to other verison. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Compared to other versions. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too small, compared to other version. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, {{nopenis}}. Courcelles (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, {{nopenis}}. Courcelles (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me, per other DR) Jcb (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please delete this page as it is creating hatred amongst races. Girishbt (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Unclear source. Given web site is no longer in operation. No evidence this is really a U.S. government production. Wknight94 talk 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom. No evidence this is a U.S. government production.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: also government websites normally don't end with .com Jcb (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Unknown original source. Given web site is all rights reserved but this appears to be a two-dimensional COM:DW. But derivative of what? Original source may also be copyrighted meaning this doesn't meet COM:L. Wknight94 talk 15:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Branbury Catholic College files from User:Addict99
[edit]- File:Bunbury Catholic College 2.jpg
- File:Bunbury Catholic College Administration.jpg
- File:Bunbury catholic college PAC inside.jpg
- File:Bunbury Catholic College PAC.jpg
- File:St Joseph’s College (Mercy Sisters).jpg
- File:St Francis Xavier’s College (Marist Brothers).jpg
- File:Bunbury Catholic College.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Likely third-party copyrighted works with no evidence of permission: logo of school no earlier than 1973 (and consisting of more than text) and photographs at odd sizes with various image border effects and no original EXIF data; indicative of website/publishing derivatives rather than original photos. File:Bunbury Catholic College Administration.jpg, for example, appears to be a direct lift from http://web1.bunburycatholic.wa.edu.au/ main photo; File:Bunbury Catholic College.jpg seems to be from [9]. Photos of St Francis Xavier's College or St Josephs College could be as late as 1973 as well. --Closeapple (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://web1.bunburycatholic.wa.edu.au/ Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
includes WP logo, which is copyrighted and not-free, therefore image cannot be completely released under a license compatible with commons. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- maybe you should nominate Template:Copyright by Wikimedia for deletion then... --Isderion (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The use in this image is unrelated to the image's primary content and use...essentially avoidably infringing rather than a legitimate permitted use (WP project content, the realm of the template you mention). For example, does not appear to be even within en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, let alone free/commons use. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- A new non-infringing image has been provided, replacing this one. Therefore I withdraw the nom. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
KEEP uncontroversial. (Image updated; logo removed; nomination was withdrawn.) Elvey (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.png&action=edit){kind=link}
.png&diff=0){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png&action=watch){kind=link}
.png&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=purge){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Copyright violations. This screenshot contains parts or visuals of copyrighted Windows Aero UI. Tar-Mairon (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep de minimis Ezarateesteban 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Ezarate Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Manderzwicky
[edit]- File:Penis and scrotum .jpg
- File:Small flaccid penis another angle .jpg
- File:Erect penis held by hand another angle .jpg
- File:Erect penis held by hand .jpg
- File:Flaccid penis urinating different angle .jpg
- File:Penis and scrotum .jpg
- File:Erect penis hand holding .jpg
- File:Flaccid penis urinating close-up .jpg
- File:Small penis with cockring close-up .jpg
- File:Erect penis with cockring different angle .jpg
- File:Small flaccid penis urinating .jpg
- File:Errect penis with cockring .jpg
- File:Flaccid penis close-up different angle .jpg
- File:Erect penis from above looking down .jpg
- File:Erect penis with cockring .jpg
- File:Flaccid small penis and scrotum close-up .jpg
- File:Flaccid penis urinating .jpg
- File:Flaccid penis urinating--Category---Media---.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:Manderzwicky. I believe they should be deleted because it's nonencyclopaedical Porn. Dandelo (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, {{nopenis}}. --77.1.227.58 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, out of scope Ezarateesteban 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
nonsense 87.123.85.157 11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not nonsense, but we do have better alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not in scope. Just another porn pic. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Not in scope: Just another porn picture. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jafeluv (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Unclear original source. Southrole (talk · contribs) uploads give both free Flickr source but also mention unfree http://www.kultur.gov.tr source. Would need COM:OTRS permission at least.
Also:
- File:Security of Imperial Prince of the Royal House of Osman - Konstantin V Mustafaev.jpg
- File:HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev of the Royal House of Osman - Topkapı Palace.jpg
- File:Official Ring of Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev of the Royal House of Osman.jpg
Wknight94 talk 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Open Research (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: except cases of PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Djuka (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, attribution to different authors. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This is a copyvio: it can't be PD-Art since it is a 3D object (Greek vase). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's impossible to tell that this is three-dimensional. Wknight94 talk 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is part of a krater or an hydria. Do you know 2D pottery? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it is two-dimensional, I'm saying it is not three-dimensional enough that the photographer could claim some sort of copyright. It's not like a sculpture. Wknight94 talk 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is part of a krater or an hydria. Do you know 2D pottery? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Wknight94 Jcb (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
the map has been provoking a lot of discussions for example the misleading character by omitting a color for non religious countries and the absolute lack of any data that has been used for the color scheme Berndpeter2 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests says, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on." Are you invoking redundant/bad quality? If so, please provide links to better files and/or identify one or more specific features that are inarguably incorrect. Since the file is used by a number of sister projects, this request is unlikely to be approved as currently stated. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. "provoking a lot of discussions" is not a valid reason for deletion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous. Discuss and improve, don't remove! Rursus (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project: "in use ... is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". Most of the Wikipedia origins for the coloring are cited in File:Europe religion map.png, and that is on use on additional Wikipedias. Its other versions File:Europe religion map de.png and File:Europe religion map fr.png are in use as well. Indeed, many Wikipedias use versions of this file in their main "Europe" article. Any map on this subject will provoke discussion. This map theme (majority religion) has been almost ubiquitous in encyclopedias and other map reference works for decades, maybe centuries. --Closeapple (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can't see the reason to keep a map that has so many factual errors.
- So just some comments from one of the discussion pages on this map
What exactly does this map seek to represent? The predominant religions in contemporary Europe, or historically-predominant religions? In the Czech Republic and Estonia, Christianity is a minority religion, considering that the majority of the population are atheists or non-religious. If the map represents current religious demographics, then these regions should be coloured in as "non-religious" or athiest. If, one the other hand, this maps show traditional religious believes, or religious heritage, then it's OK as it is, but it should be captioned different on all of the articles which use it. It is currently captioned as "Predominant religions in Europe", which makes its content incorrect. 
Ronline ✉ 13:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, I can see that after so many years there is still no clear idea of this is a map OF. Krum Stanoev (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, interesting map though but I would like to see a source of the data used for this map ..appears somewhat outdated for current western europe. Ruud64 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope copying older commnetds does not confuse too much, apologies if it does
- Ruud64 (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep: THe color scheme should be explain although the colors are explained on the map as titles. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.178.97.17 (talk) 2011-04-05 (UTC)
- Delete This map as applied on many wikipages is rather misleading and indeed causes lots of discussions. The map needs a better title including which year this map applies to ? suggestion is 1981 ? And definitely the data source should be added. Based on recent data, I surely doubt that the color schema is presenting the current sitaution in Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland.
- Peterniels (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Being from a previous period in history does not make a map wrong; it just means the description should say what era it represents. Surely the maps in Category:Maps of the history of Europe should not all be deleted. --Closeapple (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Map does not meet WIKI standardsIts-thor (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am going to repeat the current (2011-04-12) usage here for information. I think this is less than what there was when this discussion started, by the way. als (1 article): Europa; cs (6 articles): Evropa, Západní kultura, Křesťanství v Evropě, Římskokatolická církev v Evropě, Ústřední stát (Střet civilizací), Náboženství v Evropě; da (1 test): Bruger:Hejsa/Test2; en (1 article still after removals; 5 others) Talk:Religion in Europe User:Palaeovia/sinology, Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe, User:Ssolbergj/European people, User:Harland1/Workshop2, Dbachmann/ethno, Western world; nn (1): Aust-Europa; pt (1): Demografia da Europa; sq (1 user talk): Përdoruesi:Porrnoferr/9.
- Comment: There is a {{Inaccurate-map-disputed|reason}} template also. It can be used to mark maps that can be improved. --Closeapple (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. That's a vandalism to go through various wikipedias with diferent "bot" names and remove a good map. I have a usual Lithuanian geographic atlas and there are almost the same map. I don't see any problems at it. Hugo.arg (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is also what I am concerned about: that some editors are going to Wikipedias languages where they have no other interest and are deleting the map without local consensus or consultation, where it may be considered accurate, just so they can claim, in this discussion, that it isn't being used and get a deletion here on Commons quicker than the local editors on small Wikipedias notice it. I believe I saw far more usage at the beginning of this discussion on 2011-04-03 that I did on 2011-04-12 when I pasted the usage here. Even the editors who want it deleted say that it "has been provoking a lot of discussions" and is "applied on many wikipages". --Closeapple (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as Kintetsubuffalo, a lot of discussion are provoked by many files and wikipedia articles. Are we gonna delete them all?--95.240.60.220 11:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)(I'm --Etrusko25 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC) not logged in, sorry)
Kept: in use, so quality related arguments are irrelevant Jcb (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Picture is a duplicate with higher resulution but much much worse compression of this file: File:DirkvdM_harvested_coffee.jpg --Amada44 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, see no 'worse' compression, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
repeat of original 98.203.253.246 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- What original? Liftarn (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I guess the IP is talking about the original nomination. I agree. This is a higher resolution than File:DirkvdM harvested coffee.jpg, but it was upscaled, leading to worse quality, making this image useless. Jujutacular talk 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - in use, also author states that this is the original - Jcb (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No informational value; flag was designed by uploader and has no real-world recognition or notability. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Flag. Postdlf (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- The article was correctly deleted from Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that the image should be necessarily deleted from Commons. Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy as such, and traditionally has been rather tolerant of "special or fictional" flags (as long as they weren't uploaded with specifically malicious intent). AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's possible it could have some value even as something other than as a flag. I can think of what it would be used for, but all sorts of color blocks and things end up in Category:Blue, Category:Colors, Category:Color combinations, and their subcategories. Of course, maybe some of those should be deleted also. --Closeapple (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm rather perplexed by these comments. This is completely outside the scope of Commons, because it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose." The uploader is the only person who recognizes these three random shades of blue as an alternate flag for Montana, and "learn what a random person thinks the Montana flag should be" doesn't strike me as a realistic educational purpose. Nor does Category:Colors consist of images of random color combinations without meaning or educational value, but rather it categorizes informative images based on their color composition (e.g., Category:Tricolor flags that have established real-world usage).
Incidentally, en:wiki doesn't ban original research in images either, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas," which this does. Postdlf (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm rather perplexed by these comments. This is completely outside the scope of Commons, because it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose." The uploader is the only person who recognizes these three random shades of blue as an alternate flag for Montana, and "learn what a random person thinks the Montana flag should be" doesn't strike me as a realistic educational purpose. Nor does Category:Colors consist of images of random color combinations without meaning or educational value, but rather it categorizes informative images based on their color composition (e.g., Category:Tricolor flags that have established real-world usage).
I'm full of questions tonight:
- Question: Uploader was asserting no free license on English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Flag) and here until 2011-03-27. It appears from en:threshold of originality on Wikipedia and threshold of originality#United States on Commons that anything as simple as a standard tricolor flag would not be the subject of copyright in the United States. Any reason this flag should not be tagged {{PD-simple}} also?
- Question: This image actually has 15 different colors for no appreciable reason (low-visibilty artifacts), and I can reproduce this flag (at, for example, 450×300) in 452 bytes with SVG (no copyright claimed by me):
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?><!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg width="450" height="300" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="0" style="fill:rgb(55,15,111);"/>
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="100" style="fill:rgb(0,108,181);"/>
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="200" style="fill:rgb(104,191,230);"/>
</svg>
- Also, from that SVG, I output a 203 byte PNG. (I can get it down to 98 bytes if I reduce it to the minimum accurate size of 9×6.) It appears there are four possible outcomes of this discussion:
- The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, and this copy of the file (having artifacts) should stay for some reason.
- The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, but this copy should be overwritten with a cleaned-up version. (I have a 450×300 one immediately available for upload on request.)
- The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, but this file is deletable as an inferior copy (because of artifacts) to a non-artifact copy (the above SVG, immediately available for upload on request).
- The tricolor flag itself fails criteria for Commons and neither the PNG nor the SVG should be here.
- Does that sound right? --Closeapple (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your SVG is far from minimal; try this: -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<svg width="775" height="519" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<rect width="775" height="519" fill="#68BFE6"/>
<rect width="775" height="346" fill="#006CB5"/>
<rect width="775" height="173" fill="#370B6F"/></svg>
- Delete: All the above being said, I'm going to go with what I called #4 above: no evidence this specific set of colors has much hope for an educational purpose in the future, as it was a uploader-invented proposal about an off-wiki topic of which the off-wiki subject (the state of Montana) has not seemed to take notice. It is also not an image for which deletion removes a hard-to-recreate concept if it were needed: it a simple tricolor already documented right here. If it were ever needed, it could be re-uploaded with better quality than the current version anyway, as an SVG instead, and in 251 bytes at that, as demonstrated by AnonMoos above. --Closeapple (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This flag does have REAL WORLD RECOGNITION and there is an official attempt to change the flag of the US State of Montana even thought there is no source...YET! Oh, and i can't convert it to SVG because I don't have any program to do that so I can only save it as a .PNG Wolfdog406 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- What "real world recognition" does it have? --Closeapple (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I make another file of this flag but re-named it diffrently. Wolfdog406 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted (not be me) as duplicate - Jcb (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)