Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Clearly a designed logo, NOT simple geometric shapes and/or text, therefore copyright violation Hold and wave (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Silly DR, speedykept. Leyo 11:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a designed logo, NOT simple geometric shapes and/or text, therefore copyright violation Hold and wave (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Silly DR, speedykept. Leyo 11:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope as a sexual joke with no educational value. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy tagged - by an IP. And my vote is speedy as attack page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as attack image Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, no proof for permission. ComMonster (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi - this is the official Elsie the Cow logo & can be found behind at the following location: http://www.bordendairy.com/img/elsie-the-cow.jpg.
- Thank you.
- It's got the registered trademark symbol, I can't see any proof that this is a free logo. ComMonster (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy (has been deleted and reuploaded) Jcb (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Foto ist nicht richtig "gedreht" Der Graue Keiler (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe of File:Plastik eines Turmspringers.jpg Túrelio (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The uploader on Flickr is not the original author. It was credited to Clive Mason /Allsport. I tried to find the original source but failed. Ben.MQ (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Here it is credited to Goal.com: http://www.igol.pl/article,19141.html In any case, the Flickr user is not the copyright holder, so the license is invalid. This same image had already been deleted in 2008 as copyvio. Darwin Ahoy! 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded wrong image, this image is for commercial purposes and is copyrighted by me. I want to upload new image that is free for public use. Anet838 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Uploaded in error, delete per uploader request. --Simonxag (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User's request. Yann (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
permission from an official from HINEVENTS needed - it must be explicitly stated that you own all copyrights of the photographs on this poster Saibo (Δ) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete unless we get OTRS confirmation of the ownership of this poster. --Simonxag (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. No evidence that sculpture has been released under free license or into the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete This is a modern sculpture in Washington DC see [1]. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the USA. --Simonxag (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No Freedom of Panorama for artworks in the USA Lymantria (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted artwork. No evidence that said artwork has been released under free license or into the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is this in the US? Delete since no FOP for art work in the US--Ben.MQ (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is in the US see [2]. No FOP & no permission. --Simonxag (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
because got something wrong with my spelled wrong family name Minervenus (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Actually an unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unverified (it is clearly a scan of another photo), low quality, but most of all out of scope. Lucas 04:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unverified (it is clearly a scan of another photo), low quality, but most of all out of scope. Lucas 04:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unverified (it is clearly a scan of another photo), low quality, but most of all out of scope. Lucas 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unverified (it is clearly a scan of another photo), low quality, but most of all out of scope. Lucas 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete probable copyvio --Simonxag (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
incorrect stereochemistry (OH should be dotted not wedged if this is (-)-pseudo (per http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.6761). Numerous replacement possibilities in Category:Pseudoephedrine for this name and Category:Ephedrine for this structure (I'm not able to replace the remaining uses). DMacks (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom (I did it). --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
incorrect stereochemistry (OH should be dotted not wedged if this is (-)-pseudo (per http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.6761); unused (Category:Pseudoephedrine has various alternatives) DMacks (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
privacy violation - out of scope - child of 12 years old - personal picture - unused MoiraMoira (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete In a public place so no privacy concerns, but an unused personal picture. --Simonxag (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Dispute tag for more than one year; not used anywhere. Leyo 07:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. File:Demeclocycline.png is a stereochemically correct version. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Googling does not show this guy to be notable. --Simonxag (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used anywhere, alternatives in Category:Newman projection. Leyo 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Many of that cat are also pretty poor quality, but may as well reduce the pool. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete If this was notable we'd need OTRS confirmation of permission. --Simonxag (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete If the company was notable these images would need OTRS permission to confirm the license. --Simonxag (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
esta mal subida caco (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Lymantria (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Used for advertising a family business (see en:Naumes, en:Naumes inc and en:Naumes Inc., all deleted). Not useful for illustrating anything in particular. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems to be highly doubtful due to the lack of EXIF data and the low image resolution. High Contrast (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- + 1 Same doubts. Moumou82 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same doubts as well, tough I wasn't able to find the original source for it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems to be highly doubtful due to the lack of EXIF data and the low image resolution. High Contrast (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- + 1 Same doubts Moumou82 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same doubts as well, tough I wasn't able to find the original source for it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Uploader is NOT the author, lacking permission. Tvwatch (Diskussion) 11:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Tvwatch (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Added information on the origin of the image. Was created for my great-grandfather and I still own it. Photograph of the image was taken by me. Albin_Preissler1919 (Diskussion) 15:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Albin_Preissler1919
- Tvwatch: Author ("Ölgemälde von Eichhorn") was named from the start. Albin: Is it possible to identify "Eichhorn" more clearly? The surname is too common to make any guesses. Or, perhaps, years of creation. NVO (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even Preissler declares, that the picture "was created for my great-grandfather", the copyright belongs to the ominous painter Eichhorn. Preissler has to prove his rights or that Eichhorn died before 1941.--Tvwatch (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, judging by the file description, this may not be entirely the Flickr user's own work (meaning they would have had to create not only the photomanipulation, but also both of the photographs used). Secondly, it is unused and arguably outside Commons' project scope. Thirdly, there is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain, meaning photographic reproductions of architectural works located in Bahrain cannot be legally published or licensed without explicit permission by the building's architect. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Out of scope Bulwersator (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? No proof of permission from photographer. ComMonster (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? No proof of permission from photographer. ComMonster (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
unused low-resolution with text-caption that interferes with reuse, replaceable by File:Dithiothreitol.png (higher-res, no captions, same format) DMacks (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
unused low-quality (MOS and fileformat) and missing stereochemical info; replaceable by File:Penicillamine structure.png DMacks (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
esta mal subida caco (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Lymantria (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The photographer is not the uploader. There is no evidence that the uploader has permssion to license this image for use on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for modern sculptures in the United States. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, No Freedom of panorama for Artwork in the US. Statue was erected in 2010, see [3] Captain-tucker (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No freedom of panorama for artworks in the USA Lymantria (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in the United States. Subject is a 2010 sculpture by Harry Weber who is still alive. Howhontanozaz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 04:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted, see info at the bottom of this poster. ComMonster (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission confirmed, ticket 2011061510012025. – Adrignola talk 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyrigthed, see info at the bottom of the poster. ComMonster (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission confirmed, ticket 2011061510012025. – Adrignola talk 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, used for self-promotion of this minor on nl.wiki (now deleted). Mathonius (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Claimed "own work", which is inconsistent with Metadata as "Press Association" credit Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- speedy both, agency photo: "Photo credit should read: Katie Collins/PA Wire". Two other uploads by the same uploader (predictably, photos of James May) just as fishy but have no exif data. NVO (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of other file from same uploader, and licence inconsistent with metadata ("Press Association") Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
because it has many mistakes Yaseren (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:02, 27 June 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploader had tagged this series for deletion, see Category:100 poets David Bull after Katsukawa Shunsho. The DR is incomplete, but I am not going to fix all of them. The issue is the same for all of these seemingly old images, they are © David Bull 1989 after Katsukawa Shunsho 1775. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was a misunderstanding with the licensing of these images. The artist agreed with CC licences but disagreed with a free commercial use of them. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, but moreover: Part of a promotional campaign. Article was removed from nl: minutes ago. Erik1980 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The person on this picture doesn't want any pictures of her in WM projects. Avjoska (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader had tried to propose this for deletion complying with the wishes of the subject; photo is not in use, does not seem to be in COM:PS. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Obelix (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User's request. Yann (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
incorrect ("front" and "back" planes are tangled in left diagram), unused (replaceable by perhaps File:Chair-Boat-Conformation general.svg or various other Category:Cyclohexane conformation) DMacks (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete True, per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Both images have incorrect 3D rendering, unused, gif. Materialscientist (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of this one-edit account. Damiens.rf 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the sculpture or toy. COM:DW#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures? Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't know. Dark Attsios (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
My picture ist overexposed. There are many comparable pictures. -Kdkeller (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no right to use unless proven otherwise, se bus company's official app on App Store, Link Bluescan sv.wiki (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
obviously screenshot from a pdf document grillo (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- And obviously the user just reuploaded the same picture... Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grinders. /grillo (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete of image reuploaded after DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to DR from a speedy for "derivative work" by H-stt. Túrelio (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Similar problem with File:1854GameBoardCloseWien.jpg and File:1862-Game-Map-Detail.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- The design of the 1830's board game series meets the (low) standards for copyright protection in the US. So any picture of it is a derivative work and can't be used here without the approval of the rights owner. This might be different in other jurisdictions, such as Germany with its high threshold of originality, but we can't have this and similar pictures on commons. --h-stt !? 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not copyright holder, image is too complex to be PD-ineligible (for instance, look at that background photo) DS (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the uploader, Liz21744 is the same as Liz, the Sexy Chef, who is pictured here. Therefore this is probably not "own work" and we need OTRS permission from the photographer. There is also the question whether this is simply promotional and out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the uploader, Liz21744 is the same as Liz, the Sexy Chef, who is pictured here. Therefore this is probably not "own work" and we need OTRS permission from the photographer. There is also the question whether this is simply promotional and out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no notability (cover of not issued album of unknown rock-band) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no notability (cover of not issued album of unknown rock-band) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, see File:IMG 09861.JPG for another "own work" instnce of this file Darwin Ahoy! 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If this mug is actually "own work" then it is a personal creation and probably out of scope. If it is not, then it has no permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a hockey team logo or mascot. There is no evidecne that the uploader has the right to license it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Scan of an advertisement with unclear copyright. Psu256 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- The company which likely held copyright to the ad (Hallicrafters) is long since defunct. I'm not familiar with Commons equivalent of "fair use" licensing, but as a low-resolution image that helps document the article's focus on the company's role in WWII, it certainly has merit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This advertisement appeared in QST and in the Radio Amateur's Handbook around 1946 and is almost certainly {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Could someone check these publications please? SV1XV (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I actually hope it is PD, because my club wants to put it on a certificate they are going to mail out for a D-day special event station. (If it isn't PD, then it gets kind of murky... the trademark expired in 1992 apparently, but is the ad still owned by anyone? Would the ad have been sold along with the name when Northrop sold it?) Psu256 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry, but I find registrations and renewals for the Radio Amateur's Handbook as far back as 1927, so it is still under copyright there. Also, of course, someone owns the Hallicrafter's rights, even if they are extremely unlikely to act on them.
If I were a private, non-profit, user (PSU256's club, for example), I wouldn't worry about it too much. If I was being really careful, I would ask the ARRL for a release.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept SV1XV has pointed out to me that I forgot that advertisements are not covered by the publication's copyright notice. While I can construct several possible scenarios that make this editorial material or part of a multi-page ad insert covered by notice on the last page of the ad, they seem very unlikely. Therefore, since there is no notice visible and it clearly has not been cropped, this image is {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Plaque of a modern sculpture in the USA, which has been nominated for deletion as there is unfortunately no freedom of panorama in the USA: see "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dscf0690.JPG". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jack -- don't you think it might be ineligible -- there's not much there? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought there wasn't much point in retaining the plaque if the sculpture to which it belongs is deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Right, sorry, I should have connected the two. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
duplicate - wrong filename Barrylb (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, duplicate confirmed 99of9 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Jlchino (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Found File:El Cristo de mi Havana.JPG copyvio and all uploads have different filesizes and inconsistent exif date. Uploader is unreliable, nothing suggests that he says the truth. Files are File:Mi Habana.jpg and File:Capitolio de la Habana.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission - Its a cut and copy pic that originally is from a book, I was involved in the non free use upload of the pic - seen here at en wikipedia - If someone is claiming they own it are are releasing it under a commons license they will need some evidence of ownership and or permission confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom - author "unknown" is a bit of a giveaway. --Simonxag (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Same name file..... not the right picture. Djnair (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There are people on the photo. I made a crop and a new photo: Wolgast Dinkum (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason not to keep the uncropped version as well. I prefer it to File:Wolgast town hall.jpg. --Simonxag (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It may be a copyrighted logo Waihorace (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a logo, it's a coat of arms, and that would depend on Nauruian law. Fry1989 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Artist's mark on a modern sculpture in the USA, which has been nominated for deletion as there is unfortunately no freedom of panorama in the USA: see "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dscf0690.JPG". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies, a publication from between 1923 and 1963 is not named, only some recent website. Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just keep it, copyright's over 50 years old and the author is unknown.68.70.27.96 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information to keep Jcb (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
weil ich eine neue Datei laden möchte Mmerkl (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Upload under a new file name. Verwenden Sie einen neuen Dateinamen ein. – Adrignola talk 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Caralises (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This image has been discussed many a time on , which is how I because aware of it. One thing that said resonated with me: "I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than "looks legit" here. Leaving aside the appropriateness of the photo to this article (which is highly questionable), what do we know about its provenance? It looks to me like an anonymous Flickr user is the sole source on which we're basing our interpretation of this image. Am I missing something? Does this strike anyone else as questionable? Moreover, how do we know that the patient who underwent surgery consented to have this image reproduced on Wikipedia? Absent such consent, should we feel comfortable using the photo? There are actual legal and ethical issues here, and blowing them off with "looks legit" seems cavalier, to say the least. Maybe one of the reverters could explain to me why a serious, respectable reference work would illustrate its medical articles with photos from an anonymous Flickr user, lacking clear patient consent?." I think that's certainly a valid point to consider and something we should discuss at the very least. NW (Talk) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Can't find any good reason for deletion. It is frequent that contributors use a pseudonym and there's nothing wrong with it. There doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt the good faith of this flickr account. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Uploader and Flickr account holder are not anonymous. The image is very striking and of good quality - there may be articles which it could be used in without it raising dispute. DMSBel (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: This image was taken during or immediately following a medical procedure. Patient consent could be at issue. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Patient not in picture, therefore consent not an issue. License already confirmed at 00:39, 7 January 2009. Why are we revisiting this? --Michael C Price (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Does this image File:Human Hepar.jpg, took during or immediately following an autopsy, need the conset of the (deceased) patient? And this: File:Cuore1.jpg? More: File:Human Brain.jpg? Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't participate at Commons, so I'm not going to voice an official opinion here, but I need to correct a major misunderstanding about the issue of consent. Legal requirements for consent vary by jurisdiction. It is certainly possible that it's legally permissible to show this image without explicit consent from the patient. I'm not a lawyer. But we don't base our content on what we can legally get away with; we base it on what we consider to be ethical, which is different (see Wikipedia's biographies policy, for example).
I believe that it's not ethical to display an image of a woman's aborted fetus on a heavily-viewed page of a top-ten website without her permission. This abortion wasn't elective - it was performed to save the life of the mother, which was presumably a very difficult decision in that person's life. Imagine that this individual then happens to notice that her aborted fetus has been used to illustrate the Wikipedia article on abortion, getting thousands of page views a day, for the past few years without her knowledge. That may be legal, but I don't think it's ethical. Period. That's just my opinion, but since people are misconstruing the "consent" objection I felt the need to clarify it. MastCell (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "official opinion"? You certainly expressed your opinion, which is welcome, that's what everyone is doing. But are there some folks on commons with an, in a position to voice a "official opinion"? Official on behalf of WM Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk • contribs) 22. Juni 2011, 22:43 Uhr (UTC)
- Sorry - I meant that I'm not going to express an "official" opinion on whether the image should be deleted, because I'm not really up to speed on how such questions are resolved on Commons. MastCell (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "official opinion"? You certainly expressed your opinion, which is welcome, that's what everyone is doing. But are there some folks on commons with an, in a position to voice a "official opinion"? Official on behalf of WM Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk • contribs) 22. Juni 2011, 22:43 Uhr (UTC)
- Question How do we verify this image is in fact what it is claimed, as opposed to, say, a simian foetus? Also, why is it photoshopped? What changed from the original? LeadSongDog (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you imagine it has been photoshopped? If it's a simian foetus its the only picture of one ever taken. We should keep it. That would also solve the permission issue. There is however little doubt that it is a human fetus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk • contribs) 22. Juni 2011, 22:49 Uhr (UTC)
- Comment With respect to the legality / ethnically of the image I do not see a problem with it. As long as a person cannot be identified there is no need for permission ( per medical legal advice I have previously received and comments by a Canadian College of Physician and Surgeons ). If a person is identifiable than signed consent is required. As an image of a fetus is not identify to the mother I do not see the ethical concern. Stuff like this is published in medical textbooks / journals regularly. The only legitimate concern I see here is potentially over the accuracy of the image and they way in which it is being used on Wikipedia.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have a hard time believing that a photo of a fetus may legally be published in a medical text without the signed consent of the guardian of the fetus since it has never been legally established when "personhood" begins. Could you please offer a reference for that?
- Also, I can not agree that similar photos are common in medical journals and textbooks. Only rarely does one see a photo with a human hand holding the object being described, and in this case the fact that it is not held in a surgically-gloved hand but rather the type of glove used for cleaning should certainly raise a red flag. The Flickr account that the photo comes from contains many average to poor photos except for these few exquisite medical shots. We really have no idea about the circumstances surrounding its origin - for all we know the hospital cleaning lady took the picture without the knowledge or permission of anyone. Gandydancer (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- First, it isn't a fetus: it's an embryo.
- Second, once it's outside of the mother's body, it's much closer to "medical waste" than anything else. In at least most jurisdictions, there is no possibility of establishing a "guardian" for a removed, dead embryo (because it is dead in this picture), just like there is no possibility of establishing a "guardian" for an extracted tooth or a surgically removed gall bladder. ("Ownership", yes. "Guardianship", no.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, here is the description that has been used at the abortion article that has been using this photo:
- English: A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. The fetus is still alive. The author of this image states that it shows a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (i.e. from LMP), instead of 10 weeks from fertilisation.
- Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, here is the description that has been used at the abortion article that has been using this photo:
- Keep. We have other similar images that have become "featured",[4] so I don't think Flickr is an invalid source. Also, I doubt that that other image would have become "featured" if there was any ethical problem with it being in Wikimedia and/or Wikipedia. Regarding the image now under discussion, the identity and location of the image source are provided. No one has pointed to any reliable source indicating that this photo is anything other than what it purports to be. There was a discussion at the talk page of the Wikipedia article in question last month about this photo, and there was no consensus to remove it from the article, where it has been located for over a year.[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia medical articles should use only the types of photos one would generally find in medical textbooks. I believe that one would be hard pressed to find a hand-held body part, and especially held in a cleaning-type glove rather than a surgical glove, in medical texts. I question the legality as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia medical articles uncontroversially show fragile objects held in a doctor's hand.[6], and uncontroversially show a doctor's hand supporting or posing an object that's being photographed,[7] and include drawings of a doctor's hand instead of a photo.[8] Holding a fragile item in hand is normal, and here it keeps the amniotic sac from rupturing (and the person holding the object can tilt his hand or move into a better location for lighting). As a side-benefit, the hand also provides some scale.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Photos 2 and 3 are of a medical procedure and one may well expect to see a hand conducting the procedure. Regarding scale, medical illustrations or photos do not use a hand to show scale (or to tilt for better observation or lighting). As I said, one would be hard pressed to find a hand-held specimen - you have found one and that does not change my assertion. As to your claim that holding a fragile item is normal and the amniotic sac is so fragile that it must be held in-hand, is this just what you may imagine to be a fact, or is this a matter of fact? Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's what I imagine to be common sense.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Photos 2 and 3 are of a medical procedure and one may well expect to see a hand conducting the procedure. Regarding scale, medical illustrations or photos do not use a hand to show scale (or to tilt for better observation or lighting). As I said, one would be hard pressed to find a hand-held specimen - you have found one and that does not change my assertion. As to your claim that holding a fragile item is normal and the amniotic sac is so fragile that it must be held in-hand, is this just what you may imagine to be a fact, or is this a matter of fact? Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- My common sense tells me that your imagination does not affect my belief that a bed of surgical gauze would more likely be used in the case of an item too fragile to be held on a hard surface such as a table, or heavily-gloved hand for that matter, if indeed the amniotic sac is that fragile - which apparently you seem to imagine as well . Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The amnion is a delicate and fragile membrane.[9] Even if it weren't, there would be no medical reason to transfer it from hand to a bed of gauze when the picture can be adequately taken in hand (and incidentally the hand prevents any possible flattening of the amnion).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- My common sense tells me that your imagination does not affect my belief that a bed of surgical gauze would more likely be used in the case of an item too fragile to be held on a hard surface such as a table, or heavily-gloved hand for that matter, if indeed the amniotic sac is that fragile - which apparently you seem to imagine as well . Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean "transfer it from hand"? It would have never been "in hand" in the first place. I would think that if it is so fragile and delicate that it may burst it would be best to just let it lie on the table rather than pick it up and place it in the hand of a person wearing gloves, incidentally gloves usually associated with cleaning rather than a surgical procedure. Frankly I have no desire to go on with this discussion as I feel that it is just wasting everyone's time at this point. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that last sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean "transfer it from hand"? It would have never been "in hand" in the first place. I would think that if it is so fragile and delicate that it may burst it would be best to just let it lie on the table rather than pick it up and place it in the hand of a person wearing gloves, incidentally gloves usually associated with cleaning rather than a surgical procedure. Frankly I have no desire to go on with this discussion as I feel that it is just wasting everyone's time at this point. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I was asked to comment here by Gandydancer. I have no expertise in copyright law, but if the person represented in an image is not recognisable there should be no problem with image rights. That leaves the separate question of whether it is ethical to use this image. I can't see any reason why this should be problematic here; nobody will recognise their fetus and complain that their permission was not sought or that their feelings have been hurt. Medical journals often request authorisation from patients to reproduce images related to their case (e.g. CT scans or pathology specimens), but there's no law that tells them to do so. The image is of very high quality, and the glove is no impediment to its illustrative value. Jfdwolff (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. It is good to have a Wikipedia editor with experience in this area. Unless someone offers a differing opinion that appears to be as well informed, I will change my opinion to Keep rather than Delete. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I respectfully disagree with Jfdwolff and Jmh649: best practice professional guidelines require patient consent for such images. No evidence or assurance of patient consent has been offered or even requested. Even if consent was obtained, typical standard consent forms do not give nearly broad enough consent to allow uploading to Commons.
- I've been researching this topic recently and documenting my findings in the existing Commons essay on patient images in the section Commons:Patient images#Medical practice. I believe we should base our legal and ethical guidelines on the work of experts since otherwise we are influenced by our own wishful thinking [abuse of fair-use images on WP is a good example here] or restricted by ignorance [I include myself here too].
- The recent GMC guidelines now specifically cover Internet publishing.[10] This guideline isn't just good advice; doctors are warned that "serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk". I appreciate the image was taken in India rather than the UK, but ethics, unlike law, aren't contained by national boundaries.
- The medical profession has moved on from "what can we get away with" wrt obtaining consent (largely because the Internet makes it much harder to get away with it) to a more respectful "how would I feel if I found out what you'd done and hadn't been asked" (the Alder Hey organs scandal) or "if you asked me for my consent, would I give it so willingly that I'd wonder why you'd felt it necessary to ask". I'm disappointed that Commons is still stuck at the "is the copyright OK" level of discussion.
- With regard to this image, it doesn't even appear to be taken for the benefit of the patient for their records, never mind an altruistic benefit for educating physicians in a medical publication. If that is the case, then this physician took the picture purely for recreational purposes (how else can one describe taking snaps for one's Flickr photostream), rather than in their professional capacity. Would you be happy with that? If we agree for the moment that informed consent is required or at least good manners, imagine how you'd draft the consent form that would allow it to be uploadable to Commons. This would go beyond medical publication (since "for educational use only" is not an allowable restriction on Commons) and would mean, for example, the image could appear on anything from Wikipedia's main page (viewable by 8 million people) to Lady Gaga's next album cover. Would you sign it? Colin (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- But is the person whose fetus was aborted identifiable? I will need to read the GMC guidance more closely, but it is simply impossible to tell anything from the photo. Jfdwolff (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- For "Recordings for use in widely accessible public media (television, radio, internet, print)" (rather than medical records, or for research, teaching, training and other healthcare-related purposes)" it seems the GMC guidelines go further and insist on consent "whether or not you consider the patient will be identifiable from the recording". To my mind, the "identifiable" get-out falls into the Alder Hey trap: that doctors think they are doing no harm specifically because the patients (or their parents) are ignorant of what is going on and that as long as there is no way they could find out. This mindset might have been justifiable when image publication (or tissue research) is for the greater good by using in teaching or medical publications. But where the image is for someone's Flickr photostream or the "anything goes" license that Commons requires, I think it is much harder to justify. Scale it up a bit to Aldery Hey proportions. What if a physician had a Flickr account containing photos of all the aborted or stillborn foetuses they had dealt with, and the tabloids found out. Would people visit that clinic any more and would past patients feel unhappy that this was being done without their knowledge? Colin (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Commons has lots of unidentifiable human skull images without express written consents. That seems okay to me. In fact, the lack of express written consents helps safeguard anonymity.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The skulls would fall into the "Images of internal organs or structures" exemption list that GMC say don't require consent. I think most (but accept not all) people would regard a foetus as something more than just a piece of human tissue like an extracted tooth or diseased lung. Colin (talk)
- The British GMC policy does not address whether a fetus (or for that matter a sperm or blastocyst or zygote) is an internal organ or structure, so I don't think we should assume that the policy would be applicable here. Under British law, a 10-week fetus is equivalent to a tonsil in terms of legal status, which is another reason for us to hesitate before using the GMC policy to erase numerous prenatal images (including featured images) at Commons. In any event, the image in question is not simply a fetus, but rather a fetus internal to an amnion (the latter surely being an internal organ or structure).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It would help this discussion if people could source their facts as one might when writing a WP article. I'm not at all convinced about the tonsil analogy and think that legal issues aren't necessarily appropriate. I agree that wrt the GMC guidelines, it is important to consider if this foetus/embryo is exempted from their requirements for conset. For many of the other guidelines I have found, there is no distinction made. There is also perhaps a cultural distinction between the UK and the US, I don't know. The legal status of the tissue is by-the-by. What is under examination is the ethical behaviour of professionals: we do not want to host or publish images that were taken unethically and this is separate from whether they are legal or copyright-ok.
- In the UK, the Human Tissue Authority specifies how such tissue should be treated, and it is with the greatest respect for patient wishes.[11] For example, this Careplan for women who experience a miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death. says "Irrespective of gestational age, and whether there is an identifiable fetus or not, sensitivity to the needs of patients experience a miscarriage is essential." For pre-12-week gestations, this consent form should indicate that in the UK at least, professionals seek and respect the patients wishes wrt to their loss, whether you call it "products of conception", an "embryo" or a "foetus". In the UK, parents can have a burial or cremation even for such early pregnancy losses. This sort of thing does not happen for tonsils. To put it into hypothetically personal terms: is the physician in the room next door to my grieving wife, who is taking photographs of our lost pregnancy to upload to her Flickr photostream, without my consent or knowledge, behaving with the greatest respect? Colin (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin, you seem to be arguing that the image under discussion would be more consistent with ethical guidelines if it were merely the fetal skeleton, but I think it is much more respectful to photograph the intact fetus rather than take off the skin. It is also more respectful of a parent's anonymity to not insist on a written, recorded release form in a situation like this. If the parent was unaware of the photograph (we don't know that), it's still as unrecognizable as would be the skull of the parent's adult child (which you say we should not require a consent form for). I am concerned that you are formulating a new Commons rule which would require us to remove a large number of high-quality photos, thereby reducing the public's ability to see a very narrowly targeted range of images.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- See my comments below. I believe in the UK we've moved beyond the "it is OK as long as the patient doesn't and can't know what I did" attitude, especially in the case child death and lost pregnacies. I encourage you to read the guidelines I've found. I don't believe this deletion debate will cause a mass deletion (it is probably too borderline to succeed anyway) but I do think Commons hosts a lot of unethically taken/uploaded/published patient photographs. I note that Commons doesn't have ethics as any part of its policy guidelines and most people seem only concerned with copyright law and personality rights. Perhaps that needs to change. Colin (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin, you seem to be arguing that the image under discussion would be more consistent with ethical guidelines if it were merely the fetal skeleton, but I think it is much more respectful to photograph the intact fetus rather than take off the skin. It is also more respectful of a parent's anonymity to not insist on a written, recorded release form in a situation like this. If the parent was unaware of the photograph (we don't know that), it's still as unrecognizable as would be the skull of the parent's adult child (which you say we should not require a consent form for). I am concerned that you are formulating a new Commons rule which would require us to remove a large number of high-quality photos, thereby reducing the public's ability to see a very narrowly targeted range of images.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The British GMC policy does not address whether a fetus (or for that matter a sperm or blastocyst or zygote) is an internal organ or structure, so I don't think we should assume that the policy would be applicable here. Under British law, a 10-week fetus is equivalent to a tonsil in terms of legal status, which is another reason for us to hesitate before using the GMC policy to erase numerous prenatal images (including featured images) at Commons. In any event, the image in question is not simply a fetus, but rather a fetus internal to an amnion (the latter surely being an internal organ or structure).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The skulls would fall into the "Images of internal organs or structures" exemption list that GMC say don't require consent. I think most (but accept not all) people would regard a foetus as something more than just a piece of human tissue like an extracted tooth or diseased lung. Colin (talk)
- Commons has lots of unidentifiable human skull images without express written consents. That seems okay to me. In fact, the lack of express written consents helps safeguard anonymity.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have created a special consent form for images I upload to Wikimedia Commons which are identifiable. Most people have heard of this site. I explain creative commons. I explain Wikipedia. The majority of people I have discussed this with have been happy to have their images used.
- Keep in mind that people upload tons of images to Facebook. The copyright is completely owned by Facebook and they where free at one point in time to do whatever they want with "your" now "their" images. Also if you look at a site like http://www.mypacs.net/repos/mpv3_repo/static/m/Home/ They have 23,000 radiological images. Consent is not required for these as people are not identifiable by their Xray/CT/MRI. Now in the USA if the person is identifiable one needs permission both from the photographer and the subject for reuse. Thus even though they have given permission for Wikipedia to use their identifiable image others do not have the right to do so without additional permission in some jurisdictions. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Facebook is a good example of en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as far as privacy is concerned. X-rays are another example of images the GMC exempt from consent (provided patient details are removed). Can you have a look at some of the guidelines linked on the Commons:Patient images#Medical practice page. I'm adding more as I find them and it would be good to have more US guidelines too. I'd be interested to see your consent form: could you email it to me? Colin (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would be interested to see that as well James, if you wouldn't mind. I would like to compare your consent form to standard ones issued by most hospitals, if it's all right with you. NW (Talk) 17:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The PLoS Medicine consent form appears suitable, though I'd probably prefer if the final paragraph was more explicit on the potential reuse that a "do what you like with it" license allows, and am not sure what "I also understand that signing this consent form does not remove my rights to privacy" means. However, perhaps this bit of the discussion is more appropriate for Commons:Patient images as it would be good to establish a model consent form we could use on Commons. Colin (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Useful and much used image. The FlickR source looks legitimate. The location is India, so special awkward UK laws don't apply. That leaves privacy concerns - there aren't any that I can see as the patient isn't identifiable - how about privacy concerns over File:Erythrozytenkonzentrat neu.jpg? Our feelings are being colored by the emotive subject matter (abortion not patient privacy). --Simonxag (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about Commons, but on WP the "useful" argument can't be used in a deletion discussion. There are lots of useful images in the world we can't or choose not to use. What does "looks legitimate" mean? We haven't been discussing UK laws but ethics. There's nothing illegal about this image in any country. Surely you aren't arguing that we can accept images taken or uploaded from some countries because they have lower or unknown (unpubished) ethical standards? I can assure you the abortion debate isn't a factor in my participation here. I accept the image does not affect the patient's privacy because the foetus is unidentified/unidentifiable, but privacy isn't the only factor. Have a look at the GMC's Principles for their ethical guidance: "When making or using recordings you must respect patients' privacy and dignity, and their right to make or participate in decisions that affect them...". Ethics discussions necessarily involve emotion. If one's view is that this is merely "clinical waste" as some people here have stated, then your view on what doctors can do with it is different to someone who views this as someones "lost baby" to take the polar opposite. I've tried to point out (with sources) that in the UK at least, we have been through this debate and here it is not considered merely clinical waste that doctors can do what they like with. Colin (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- A range of issues have been raised around this image, I'm pleased that you accept that all but privacy concerns have been dealt with. As for privacy concerns, your argument is based on the emotive nature of the material. I accept that a real person's real privacy needs to be respected, but no actual privacy has been invaded here. --Simonxag (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've interpreted my comments completely incorrectly. Colin (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- A range of issues have been raised around this image, I'm pleased that you accept that all but privacy concerns have been dealt with. As for privacy concerns, your argument is based on the emotive nature of the material. I accept that a real person's real privacy needs to be respected, but no actual privacy has been invaded here. --Simonxag (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - this is one of the images where we should be more cautious about patient consent. Simply assuming patient has no way to recognize the image is not good enough for me. Richiez (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- my reasoning:
- is it possible that an affected person (not necesarilly patient itself) could develop strong emotional feelings when seeing the image? I am pretty sure so. This is not a tissue sample or radiologic image. The opinions and traditions on embryos and fetuses vary wildly across cultures, we should be conservative. Someone mentioned child nudity, I do not see why we should limit caution to the issues of child nudity.
- in the absence of explicit consent, is it reasonably safe to assume the sample will remain anonymous and unidentifyable? Absolutely no, Gandydancer posted the details of the case which make it easilly identifyable for the affected persons. Even worse, a few dozens of simlarly affected persons will be thinking hm.. I was 44 when I had cervical cancer and 6 previous children - is it my fetus?
- In my opinion this is a situation we should avoid. If there is explicit consent it would be different of course. Richiez (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- CommentWe should not IMO use more stringent criteria than major journals or textbooks except may be when it comes to child nudity which we should simply stick clear of all together.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This article in the BMJ and the GMC guidelines disagree and consider open internet publishing to be a step beyond the traditional medical journal/textbook publication. To start with, it needs a new option on the consent form that allows publication for any use (something the PLoS Medicine consent form, and presumably your own, make clear). Traditional consent forms would not give permission to upload to Commons -- they are quite restrictive in the permitted uses. Whether Internet publishing means we need to be stricter about what sort of images need consent is perhaps an unsettled issue. I think there is a mix of opinions both in this discussion and among professionals, with some publications and authors accepting this image, and others absolutely not. I believe, if we applied an "ask the general public" test on whether consent was required, the answer would overwhelmingly be yes. Colin (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Both require consent I do not think anyone is saying it doesn't.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your response here. I thought that earlier you and Jfdwolff said this sort of image doesn't require consent. Colin (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Both require consent I do not think anyone is saying it doesn't.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This article in the BMJ and the GMC guidelines disagree and consider open internet publishing to be a step beyond the traditional medical journal/textbook publication. To start with, it needs a new option on the consent form that allows publication for any use (something the PLoS Medicine consent form, and presumably your own, make clear). Traditional consent forms would not give permission to upload to Commons -- they are quite restrictive in the permitted uses. Whether Internet publishing means we need to be stricter about what sort of images need consent is perhaps an unsettled issue. I think there is a mix of opinions both in this discussion and among professionals, with some publications and authors accepting this image, and others absolutely not. I believe, if we applied an "ask the general public" test on whether consent was required, the answer would overwhelmingly be yes. Colin (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Basing discussion on the UK position is a bad idea. The UK had a press led moral panic, the Alder Hey organs "scandal", which has led to an almost medieval attitude to human anatomy and tissue in the law and in the medical profession. The Wikimedia project works on the ideals of the enlightenment:- reason and free knowledge as opposed to emotion and enforced ignorance. --Simonxag (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- My idea of enlightenment is the profession considering: "if my actions were subject to public scrutiny, how would I fair?". The old "this is OK as long as nobody finds out" attitude is definitely out of the dark ages and relied on public ignorance.
- But if you want a US position, try the American College of Medical Genetics. They say "Historically, the focus of clinicians and medical journals has been to preserve the anonymity of their patients and subjects. Over the past decade, however, this focus has shifted toward obtaining full consent for all images, even those that do not identify the patient. ... As a matter of course, we suggest that all published clinical photographs, whether likely or not to be identifying, should have appropriate consent from the patient." Colin (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Why are we talking about UK position and/or US position? The image was taken in India so I just think that we need to know (and to talk about) the India position. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need to know the country at all. This isn't a copyright or other legal issue where the location of the photographer/uploader matters. This is just ethics. And I'm trying to establish what best-practice is and suggest we follow it. Perhaps other folk want to base their ethics on what is considered acceptable in a third-world country, but not me. Colin (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin, The American College of Genetics confirms what I said above: "Historically, the focus of clinicians and medical journals has been to preserve the anonymity of their patients and subjects." This position may be changing in some fields within the US and Britain, but it is still a respectable ethical position, and it is the basis for hundreds if not thousands of images uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to make a general policy change here at Commons, why not do so at a general policy page, and be clear about whether you want the new policy to be retroactive? Applying your new policy to this image alone does not make sense to me. If you want to continue doing so, please explain why your position would be different if the photographer had stripped the skin and organs, and merely photographed the fetal skeleton (which is what you have called an 'internal" structure); wouldn't it be more ethical and respectful to leave the subject of the photo intact? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It might be a widespread position but is increasingly held to be untenable. Commons appears to have no ethical guidelines whatsoever beyond the minimum required by criminal and civil law in Florida. There are various ways to discover consensus for change here and a deletion discussion is one. I think it would have been easier to start with an image that was clearly identifiable but this one came up. You are right that a large-scale deletion decision would require guideline or policy changes, and I may well find time to explore that. I suspect this discussion will not reach consensus but the discussion is still valuable. If some people here regard the subject matter as just "clinical waste" and wouldn't mind the physician acting as they did if it was their lost pregnancy, then I have to respect their different view and we can consider that part of the varied opinions held here.
- It is a bit of a distraction to discuss hypothetical actions and photographs. We can take that elsewhere if you are interested, but let's stick to the photograph under discussion. The peculiar circumstances of this photograph add to its deletion merits. Colin (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin you wrote: Perhaps other folk want to base their ethics on what is considered acceptable in a third-world country, but not me. I'm really sorry but IMHO I think that your sentence is obviously discriminative and offensive. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, I shouldn't have grouped all third world countries together. According to the World Bank,[12] the UK's ethical standards of corporate and public life are exceeded by only a small handful of mainly Nordic countries. India's score is about half that of the UK and definitely in the must-try-harder range. I'm pretty comfortable with not giving much weight to what India has to say on this matter. Can we stick to the point please. Colin (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin, I do not regard the subject matter as equivalent to "clinical waste", and instead I regard the subject matter as equivalent to a photo of a fetal skeleton (which you say does not require written consent).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fine. I think that is a valid interpretation and viewpoint (though I disagree with it). Colin (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin you wrote: Perhaps other folk want to base their ethics on what is considered acceptable in a third-world country, but not me. I'm really sorry but IMHO I think that your sentence is obviously discriminative and offensive. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colin, The American College of Genetics confirms what I said above: "Historically, the focus of clinicians and medical journals has been to preserve the anonymity of their patients and subjects." This position may be changing in some fields within the US and Britain, but it is still a respectable ethical position, and it is the basis for hundreds if not thousands of images uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to make a general policy change here at Commons, why not do so at a general policy page, and be clear about whether you want the new policy to be retroactive? Applying your new policy to this image alone does not make sense to me. If you want to continue doing so, please explain why your position would be different if the photographer had stripped the skin and organs, and merely photographed the fetal skeleton (which is what you have called an 'internal" structure); wouldn't it be more ethical and respectful to leave the subject of the photo intact? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need to know the country at all. This isn't a copyright or other legal issue where the location of the photographer/uploader matters. This is just ethics. And I'm trying to establish what best-practice is and suggest we follow it. Perhaps other folk want to base their ethics on what is considered acceptable in a third-world country, but not me. Colin (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep While I do not agree with how the image is used on Wikipedia I do not see any ethical concern with using it. Historically medical textbooks and journals have been publishing similar images for years. Now if people are going to illegally take images and use them from either Wikipedia and controvein personal use they can just aswell take images from textbooks and controvein all copyright. A bigger issue I see is the use of this image [13] for which the person who took it denies releasing it under the license it is tagged here on Wikipedia. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're mistaken about the pregnancy photo. I contacted the FlickR user, drawing attention to it's use on Wikipedia and he replied there was "no problem" with it. It's just another emotive image that "privacy" concerns are being projected onto. --Simonxag (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I too contacted the user in question and he said he is fine with Wikipedia using it but does not release it and never released it under a license that allows commercial reuse.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that is so, perhaps you should start a deletion request. I don't disbelieve the license. I didn't raise that issue with the photographer as I was responding to a discussion about privacy concerns. Though this person has now adopted a non-commercial license on Flickr, this license was checked at the time of upload. The licenses of this users many other images on the Commons have been checked by a variety of trusted users and, in at least one case, by a bot. --Simonxag (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Creative commons licenses are irrevocable. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes so it remains the word of the person who verified the license verses that of the person who took the image and uploaded it to flicker.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are right! As Simonxag said, you should start a deletion request. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Already did and the vote was to keep.[14] [15] --James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are right! As Simonxag said, you should start a deletion request. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes so it remains the word of the person who verified the license verses that of the person who took the image and uploaded it to flicker.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Creative commons licenses are irrevocable. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that is so, perhaps you should start a deletion request. I don't disbelieve the license. I didn't raise that issue with the photographer as I was responding to a discussion about privacy concerns. Though this person has now adopted a non-commercial license on Flickr, this license was checked at the time of upload. The licenses of this users many other images on the Commons have been checked by a variety of trusted users and, in at least one case, by a bot. --Simonxag (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I too contacted the user in question and he said he is fine with Wikipedia using it but does not release it and never released it under a license that allows commercial reuse.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're mistaken about the pregnancy photo. I contacted the FlickR user, drawing attention to it's use on Wikipedia and he replied there was "no problem" with it. It's just another emotive image that "privacy" concerns are being projected onto. --Simonxag (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the reason there is an issue with jurisdiction and perhaps legal concern is that there are specific laws concerning consent for photographing aborted fetuses, such as this one from Tennessee It's very infrequent though to have it so spelled out like TN. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: COM:PEOPLE does not apply as subject is not identifiable. Used extensively; Commons does not editorialize on other projects. Should a project feel the image should not be displayed, it is its choice to do so or not. No evidence has been provided that the Flickr user is not the source of the image. – Adrignola talk 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The subject (the bottle) is copyrighted to its designer. Ben.MQ (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep It's a bottle not an artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. – Adrignola talk 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
bad Reddog11223 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep image quality is quite good, not at all bad. MKFI (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Info It is a request by the uploader. --Leyo 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
speedy/delete Reddog11223 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
requested delete by uploader Hold and wave (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as user request for unused image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This is more like an article than a gallery and seems to me to be out of scope. However, its creator, Dominic, argues on his talk page that it is a useful form, so I have brought it here to allow the community to decide whether to change our policy to allow this form or not.
I also wonder if there isn't a better place within the WMF to do this -- Wikisource, perhaps. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am quite befuddled by this nomination. It seems like a rather hostile and rash reaction to an attempt to make content more usable. I recognize that people might have differing opinions about how best to organize collections of images, and I wanted to hear those opinions, but this is not helpful. For background, I am the Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives, and I have been thinking recently about alternative ways of presenting donated content. The following paragraph is copied from my comment to James on my talk page (which was apparently so unconvincing he nominated the page for deletion...).
I am really just experimenting right now, but I think that it could be a useful concept. I am uploading content from the National Archives, and hope to eventually undertake a large, systematic image donation. Their catalog records are organized hierarchically, with items in file units, file units in series, and series in record groups based on the originating agency (e.g., the House of Representatives). While we include this kind of information in the citation along with item-specific metadata, the series- and record group-level records also have useful information of their own related to all of their child documents. They are also an important organizational structure. I intended for this to be a gallery of all the documents in this particular series in which I could also include the series metadata (like that "scope and content" note). You can see from {{NARA navbox}} where I was thinking of going with this idea (if you imagine more record groups and series, and with cells that actually line up!).
I really don't know what to say about James' conclusion that this is somehow just an "article," except that it seems like he hasn't actually read the text to see that it is information about the documents themselves written by the processing archivist, and he is also probably unfamiliar with the concept of an archival scope and content note. Dominic (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Far from being "hostile and rash", as I explained on User talk:Dominic, a DR is a very measured response to a Gallery that merited a {{Speedy}} for being far out of scope. A DR allows the community to comment on whether a page is one that we want to keep or not. Nothing useful could be accomplished by our discussing it on his talk page since its status is a question of policy, not one that the two of us could answer. Since the length of the piece -- 14 paragraphs -- appears to be well beyond the "brief description of the subject" called for by our guidelines -- it seems to me to merit discussion and a DR is, I think, our best public place for that.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- This work should be on wikisource or in a subpage. Not in main. If it's a test please use a sand box and then talk about your idea in the village pump for advices. However this stuf could have an interest. Otourly (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikisource is for published and/or historical texts, so this kind of content doesn't really belong there, as far as I'm aware. While paragraphs of text in the main namespace aren't particularly common on Commons, I don't see what the big deal is. It's metadata, essentially, that all relates to the galleries. Dominic hasn't written any of this text, it's from the catalog, so it's difficult to see how this could be considered an article. (It might make sense to make this point a bit clearer on the page, though.) And honest-to-Christ, of all the ridiculous shit on Commons, this is what you're choosing to battle over? Please stop being silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- @User:MZMcBride -- please read my comments again -- there is no battle here. Given the volume of text on this gallery page, it was a clear {{Speedy}} as out of scope. Instead, I chose to bring it here for the community to discuss. That's how the system is supposed to work when an Administrator (or anyone else) is uncertain over a deletion.
- It's still not clear to me why this material needs a gallery in addition to the several categories it already has. No one is going to look through this gallery to select images for use elsewhere -- users would naturally use the category system, because unlike ordinary photos, thumbnails of documents tell the viewer nothing.
- Also, since this gallery has no categories, it is unlikely that anyone will find it anyway. We have more than 10 million pages on Commons so that one without categories is simply lost like an incorrectly shelved book in a library. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you surprised that an incomplete page nominated for deletion an hour after creation has no categories? Are you seriously suggesting that you might have deleted outright a gallery page simply because it had a perceived excess of text , rather than suggesting it be trimmed or improved somehow? Apparently you want to delete the series-level descriptive archival metadata about these documents, which was the point of organizing the page that way, and then you also complain that there is little use to thumbnails of documents. I would agree with that last point to some extent, because the whole reason I created the page was to house the data for the document series, not just to display them. It is worth noting, though, that there are plenty of series with works of art and photography. Dominic (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, for the third time, I don't want to delete this. What I want is for the community to have an opportunity to discuss whether it is within scope, because, at first glance, it appeared to me to be on the wrong side of "brief description". Please note that nowhere above have I put a {{Vd}} or suggested that I was certain that it ought to be deleted. I have tried to simply raise questions for the community.
- And, yes, I might well have deleted this page for being out of scope. In the last week, I've deleted 97 new would-be gallery pages that failed our needs for one reason or another -- out of scope, vandals, mistakes, tests. My colleagues have probably deleted another 300. It is not a process that allows a lot of thought, because the vast majority of the new pages are not keepers and there are many more of them than there are active Administrators to work on them.
- Most users create new galleries in a sandbox and transfer them to gallery space only when they are ready for public viewing. Others tag the gallery at the top, noting that it is under construction. Both of these methods help the Admins do their job -- it must work, because out of ~500 deleted gallery pages in the last month, I have deleted a Gallery page that actually deserved to be kept only twice.
- But, again, please, our process is not the issue here. If you want to censure me, take it to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. The issue here is for the community to decide whether this sort of gallery is within scope for Commons or whether good categorization, with appropriate metadata included on each, would be a better way to organize these documents.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- You keep telling me that you don't want to delete it, and yet you nominated the page for deletion and here we are at "deletion requests". If that is appropriate, as you suggest, then it is hard for me to believe that the process is not the issue. There is a severe lack of common sense here.
You are doing this all because the information I copied over from the National Archives' catalog, which is all pertinent in any case, was longer than normal. I would hate to see how you treat people who actually misunderstand Commons' mission, or are actually new to Wikimedia. Dominic (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- You keep telling me that you don't want to delete it, and yet you nominated the page for deletion and here we are at "deletion requests". If that is appropriate, as you suggest, then it is hard for me to believe that the process is not the issue. There is a severe lack of common sense here.
- Again, please, please, stop complaining about process. If you want to censure me, do it as I suggested above. This page is for discussion of the gallery, not of whether I chose the right process or not.
- Please start from scratch and present us with a good solid argument why this gallery (and others like it in the future), is an appropriate use of Commons resources -- in particular, why using the category system wouldn't bring users to the particular documents they need more quickly. From my point of view, galleries exist only to make visual selection from a large group easier. I would think it would be far more likely that a user would find one of these documents by drilling down the category tree than by looking at unreadable thumbnails.
- Also, remember that categories are required, so that if you push ahead with galleries, you will have to maintain two more or less parallel sets of images and descriptions. Are you sure you want to take on that task for the many documents this project might encompass?
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and I look forward to Dominic's continuing enrichment of the Commons through his relationship with the United States National Archives and Records Administration. Commons could become a world-class archive with this special relationship. Harej (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as this is an attempt to present and organize archival material at Commons. This is already clear from the leading paragraph:
- This page organizes all content on the Wikimedia Commons created by the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in the series Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (ARC Identifier 559822). This is part of the National Archives and Records Administration's Record Group 233: Records of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1789 - 2006 (ARC Identifier 560).
- This introduction is followed by a gallery along with captions and a lengthy section with some background about these files which help to understand it. This is helpful. It is no attempt to create a Wikipedia article page at Commons. Instead, simply descriptions that focus on the document types and some brief historical background are given. This kind of information would otherwise go into the individual file descriptions. But as we have this set of documents it makes sense to factorize this into the corresponding gallery page. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the gallery,
Move the text to wikipedia/wikisource and place a link under the gallery and Delete the text...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
-Pseudoefedryna.svg){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedrine.png){kind=link}
_bayernhafen_Nürnberg.jpg){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedryna.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedryna.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedryna.svg){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedryna.svg){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedrine.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedrine.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedrine.png){kind=link}
-Pseudoefedrine.png){kind=link}
_bayernhafen_N%C3%BCrnberg.jpg){kind=link}
_bayernhafen_N%C3%BCrnberg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greig_syndrome2.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Necrotizing_fasciitis_left_leg_debridement.JPEG){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vacuum-aspiration_(single).svg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pregnancy_26_weeks.jpg){kind=link}
No one above has yet answered my oft-repeated question -- why does this set of documents (and others to follow) need a gallery organization in addition to the mandatory category organization? Galleries are generally used to show off only the best images in a category -- that clearly doesn't apply here. All of the other information can as well be included in a category as a gallery-- so why maintain two parallel structures for these? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The intention behind the page was to display the series as a set of images along with the series-specific metadata. It was not just an attempt to categorize a group of images as belonging to the series. Dominic (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, but you can do exactly that on the relevant category pages. Why duplicate the work that will be necessary on the cat pages? Since most users will arrive at these images by going down a category tree, not by stumbling across a gallery with a long name, the categories are where the effort should go. I have not yet seen that those who are advocating for this gallery understand that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does it really come down to whether to put the content on a gallery or a category? I think you are quibbling over minutia at this point. Certainly, I could make this into a category instead, but the same could be said for all collections of images that make up a gallery. (And I haven't, so I am not sure what all this duplication you are talking about is.) A category is intended primarily to categorize, not display and describe. You can't control where on the page the images go, or give them captions or section headers or several other such features. I can't see why I should prefer it. Dominic (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, but you can do exactly that on the relevant category pages. Why duplicate the work that will be necessary on the cat pages? Since most users will arrive at these images by going down a category tree, not by stumbling across a gallery with a long name, the categories are where the effort should go. I have not yet seen that those who are advocating for this gallery understand that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question of "prefer" -- categories are mandatory because they are how users actually find images among the 10,451,051 we have on Commons. You must create categories for these. If you don't, someone else will and you probably won't like their choices.
The reason galleries are created is to select images -- to show off the best images in a category, so that a user doesn't have to look through hundreds or thousands of images on a subject to find the best ones. Admittedly the choices are subjective, but that's the rationale. With these, such a visual selection is not possible and, presumably, a selection is not necessary -- all of these documents are important within their range.
You are correct that you can't give them captions, but you could include the meta-data for each relevant sub-category. I note that the file names are actually identical to the captions you have given, so that doesn't seem to be a problem with these -- although they display abbreviated in categories, the full file name comes up as a tool tip when you mouse over it.
The function of section heads can be performed by sub-cats as required.
For example, this group appears to be all about women's suffrage except the second. I would, therefore, suggest two sub-cats, one for suffrage and one for lynching. They might be
- Category:HR Committee on the Judiciary - Petitions and Memorials - Suffrage
- Category:HR Committee on the Judiciary - Petitions and Memorials - Lynching
The documents clearly need category work -- I don't understand what's coming next, so I'm not the right person to do most of it, but I've added
to them where appropriate. Perhaps new categories for some of the other important people? Sub cats by decade? The great advantage of cats is that a file can appear in many cats, so that related pieces will show up together -- these two Anthony documents show up with nine others she wrote that are not part of this series. I also created Category:Documents on Women's Suffrage in the United States in which they all appear. These are all far more likely places for people to be looking for these documents than the subject gallery, which sits by itself, outside of the tree structure, like a library book whose index cards are missing and is on the wrong shelf. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a worthwhile experiment. If you want to assess the usability or fit or policy implications, let the contributor develop a few more and then, with examples at hand, bring it up at Village Pump. Maybe in the end the solution will be to move the notes to a set of appropriate category pages but that will be a lot more readily accomplished if the structure and materials are at hand. This is not to deny the need for categories on the individual image pages and on the galleries but that's a separate issue. This is far from the first time categorization has lagged on major upload projects and it will catch up.Dankarl (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be modern work and therefore the image infringes on the sculptor's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- At last, dead bones brought to review. Aren't they all "modern" (<70 ypma etc.)? Must be a case precedent, kill all or keep all. NVO (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- If it is, in fact, bones -- or, much more likely, fossils of bones, then I'll withdraw this in a heartbeat with an apology. I think, though, that this is a reproduction and therefore a sculpture for our purposes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any archeologists? I don't see how we'd know either way regarding this. – Adrignola talk 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- These are, in this case, not the original bones but they are not a sculpture either. The picture is of a cast of a reconstructed low quality cast of the original fossil material.--MWAK (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the cast-story sounds plausible Jcb (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
FILES OF LUXUSFROSCH IV
[edit]- File:Kit shorts FCBAYERN 0708h.png
- File:Kit shorts FCBAYERN 0809a.png
- File:Kit shorts FCBAYERN 0809t.png
- File:Kit shorts HSV 1112h.png
- File:Kit shorts HSV 1011h.png
- File:Kit left arm HSV 1011h.png
- File:Kit right arm HSV 1011h.png
- File:Kit shorts RAPIDS 11h.png
- File:Kit shorts WHITECAPS 11h.png
- File:Kit shorts WHITECAPS 11a.png
- File:Kit left arm FCDALLAS 10h.png
- File:Kit right arm FCDALLAS 10h.png
- File:Kit left arm FCDALLAS 10a.png
- File:Kit right arm FCDALLAS 10a.png
- File:Kit shorts VICTORY 1112h.png
- File:Kit shorts TIMBERS 11h.png
- File:Kit shorts TIMBERS 11a.png
- File:Kit shorts DYNAMO 11h.png
no longer used and desired --Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploader tried to propose this for deletion, saying: "Kreis Lugano gibt es nicht, sondern dieser Kreis setzt sich aus Lugano est und Lugano ovest zusammen." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
