Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
porque es muy fea la imagen Miqii (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshot and hence Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
porque es muy fea la imagen Miqii (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshot and hence Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the image has been taken from Facebook as mentioned in the source, it is definitely copyrighted. Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Another copyright violation from a user with a history of copyright violations. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded it by mistake. Please delete. Thanks. Lpmoreira (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
GehNgiS (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Out of scope, not educational GehNgiS (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong copyright information Jmccomas85 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong copyright information Jmccomas85 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong copyright information Jmccomas85 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG
[edit]As the source in file description tells you, its a "PTI Photo by Swapan Mahapatra" and to the best of my knowledge, PTI works are not compatible with wikimedia free licenses. Lovy Singhal (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.eldiariodelarepublica.com/deportes/Boca-le-gano-2-a-0-a-San-Lorenzo-20120304-0028.html copyrighted picture Ileana n (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Stamp from Afghanistan honoring Mawlana Jalaluddin Balkhi aka Rumi.jpg that is used in this image was deleted due to copyright violation. Americophile 06:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination russavia (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Graphics portion is much more than "simple geometric shapes"; the fact that you can see the presense of a peacock's head within the shapes makes it rather sophisicated and this ineligible for PD-LOGO. Tabercil (talk) 00:11, 7 May 201m2 (UTC)
- weak
Keep - COM:TOO#United States shows the Best Western logo was deemed too simple for copyright in the US, and it is about as complex as this logo. If anyone has an example of a similarly complex logo deemed copyrightable in the US, by all means present it here and I will change my opinion to delete. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep – The shapes of the NBC Peacock logo fail to comply with the U.S. threshold of originality. These types of shapes are not sophisticated enough to attract copyright protection, and in fact, as Magog points out, a logo slightly more complex than NBC's Peacock – i.e., the logo for Best Western hotels that is listed as an example at COM:TOO#United States – was indeed deemed uncopyrightable in the U.S.; Commons even has the accompanying documents here to prove it. So, under those circumstances, I would vote that this image transferred by me should be kept. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, May 7, 2012, 01:28 UTC.
- Delete (per my comment on other MSNBC logos). This is a logo made of shapes, which is squarely in copyright territory. One could construct an argument that it lacks the threshold of originality, but one could construct a much better argument that arranging five teardrop shapes in different colors with a negative space that evokes a peacock head and neck is quite original. If we get into this level of analysis we'll be sifting through every logo in America and making our own naive declaration about which are entitled to copyright and which are not. It's not our place to decide that, it's for American courts. The Best Western application is not a court decision that creates law, it's a nonprecedential action by the copyright office. - 108.71.89.105 06:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - In my view this is slightly more than a simple shape, it is a uniquely stylized peacock. While each individual color swatch is simple enough, the fanned arrangement with the peacock shape in the middle with beak form a more complex and unique arrangement that does exceed the threshold of originality. The sum of the parts is both creative and original. And I disagree with Seth Allen above that this peacock is less complex than the Best Western logo. Best Western is a simple signboard (not unique in itself) and lettering (not unique in itself) and a slightly stylized W. In Best Western the image is NOT the sum of it's parts... it's a small collection of parts, and the unique parts is what we would consider here, namely the W, which is not original and stylized enough to be copyrightable. On that basis, considering the peacock image as the sum of its parts, it is more creative, and more importantly, more original. – JBarta (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment This logo can easily be used on specific wikis in MSNBC articles as fair use. Minimal fuss and no worries. – JBarta (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Seems commons is chock full of NBC logos...
.jpg){kind=link}
– JBarta (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- If it's wrong to keep one of them, it's wrong to keep all of them... irregardless of how long an image has been on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per United States TOO, which is extremely broad. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per arguments presented by Magog the Ogre and Seth Allen. If there are examples of other logos similar to this and the BW logo which are deemed to be complex, please bring this back for further review. russavia (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Graphics portion is much more than "simple geometric shapes"; the fact that you can see the presense of a peacock's head within the shapes makes it rather sophisicated and this ineligible for PD-LOGO. Tabercil (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – The shapes of the NBC Peacock logo fail to comply with the U.S. threshold of originality. These types of shapes are not sophisticated enough to attract copyright protection, and in fact, a logo slightly more complex than NBC's Peacock – i.e., the logo for Best Western hotels that is listed as an example at COM:TOO#United States – was deemed uncopyrightable by a U.S. court of law; Commons even has the accompanying documents here to prove it. So, under those circumstances, I would vote that this image transferred by me should be kept. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, May 7, 2012, 01:28 UTC.
- Delete. An arrangement of shapes to form a logo is a more or less standard copyright situation. We're in no position to overturn American copyright law based on our own analysis of the threshold of originality. Contra to the argument above, the copyright office's action in the case of the Best Western application is a non-precedential administrative action, and seems to go against the general understanding of copyrights. In that case the originality consisted of a five-sided outline of a house (which by itself is not copyrightable), with stylized wording inside (which also, by itself, is not copyrightable). Here we have six teardrop shapes in different colors arranged in a circle with the negative space cleverly arranged to suggest a peacock neck and head, which is certainly creative and original. We shouldn't be pushing boundaries here to declare things beyond copyright law. I don't think this is a close case but even if it were we should err on the side of caution. Any legitimate use on Wikipedia itself ought to fall under a nonfree use for logos. - 108.71.89.105 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- You and I seem to have made the exact same case. I should have read yours first and just said "agree with the above" ;-) – JBarta (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - In my view this is slightly more than a simple shape, it is a uniquely stylized peacock. While each individual color swatch is simple enough, the fanned arrangement with the peacock shape in the middle with beak form a more complex and unique arrangement that does exceed the threshold of originality. The sum of the parts is both creative and original. And I disagree with Seth Allen above that this peacock is less complex than the Best Western logo. Best Western is a simple signboard (not unique in itself) and lettering (not unique in itself) and a slightly stylized W. In Best Western the image is NOT the sum of it's parts... it's a small collection of parts, and the unique parts is what we would consider here, namely the W, which is not original and stylized enough to be copyrightable. On that basis, considering the peacock image as the sum of its parts, it is more creative, and more importantly, more original. – JBarta (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Seems commons is chock full of NBC logos...
– JBarta (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per United States TOO Fry1989 eh? 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per same arguments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSNBC 2008 logo.svg russavia (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality watermarked image. We have a superior alternative (File:Kingman, AZ train station.jpg). I've replaced usage on commons, dk and ja. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the watermark so we can eliminate that issue from consideration. Yes the image is small and poor quality, but it's taken at an entirely different angle as the other you mention. Might as well keep it. – JBarta (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No harm to keep this file russavia (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This image contains a non free logo from Wikimedia Foundation and its sole purpose is to use on a user page. Ralgis 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: personal file, not in use russavia (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This image contains a non free logo from Wikimedia Foundation and its sole purpose is to use on a user page. Ralgis 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: personal image, in use russavia (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This image contains a non free logo from Wikimedia Foundation and its sole purpose is to use on a user page. Ralgis 02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: personal image, not in use russavia (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Original appears to be this Panoramio image marked All Rights Reserved: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10153270 Ytoyoda (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio as per nom russavia (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article which used this image on en:wp Viperous Tee Tyler has been deleted. This pic is hence of no use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a TV screen capture. We will require larger resolution original file to confirm copyright Sreejith K (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure resolution is an issue. I have seen screen shots being used on commons with less resolution?? Basheera Masih (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Question Is this a screenshot or a photo taken by you? --Sreejith K (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
it's a screen shot Basheera Masih (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Question Who is the original photographer? Or is this taken from a video? You do not seem to hold the copyright in either case. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
ok thanks for your advice, let me check the DVD info and let you know Basheera Masih (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I have not found ownership info from the DVD, only the distributor info. Am searching and will let you know ASAP. Basheera Masih (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: non free screenshot russavia (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Someguy1221 as Speedy (For the love of...We should not be pasting a random woman's picture on the internet and telling the world she is a prostitute. The flickr page this originated from is an awful source for claiming as much. I don't know what CSD criterion this is, but it needs to be removed as soon as possible.) Sreejith K (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- A similar image File:Shenzhen Spa.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: There are many images in this category. Shouldn't all be nominated? Will pixalating the face work here? Just as it is done in File:11.02450 Brothel-girls-11.jpg.gif? (But i dont know why this file has a note to see the other similar image File:Young Prostitutes in Mumbai.jpg which is not pixalated. ) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As these are in private situations, COM:IDENT applies russavia (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an arbitrarily colored map that has no usage as a template. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The map depicts "Turkish visa regime for Foreign tourists". It has a use even if it is poorly named. It may be a duplicate but your rationale is not right either way. If it is a duplicate it does not need com-del process. I am unsure what the file portrays but it isn't a complete match to File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It's not up to us to decide which one is correct. As there does appear to be some sort of scope, discuss it, and perhaps redirect the incorrect file to the other russavia (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is supposedly covering the nations that Turkey has visa ties with, but this purpose is superceded by File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG. Also the filename is entirely nondescriptive. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a casual comment on File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG -- from an accessibility standpoint, I really hate seeing the map legend actually on the image. Osiris (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept Being superseded is not reason for deletion; it may be used in the case of a historical look at the Turkish visa regime with other countries. If it is now out-of-date, please a note on the image description as such; being outdated is not a reason for deletion. Renaming can take place inline with relevant policies. russavia (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an unused duplicate of File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG that has an inappropriate file name. Why hasn't this been deleted? —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept This has been kept twice before and the reason has been explained. Do not nominate it for deletion again or you may be blocked for vandalism. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This photo was scanned from an album, and user who have done this didn't know it's illegal to upload such photos. Kf8 (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio - scan from a book russavia (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The file is not educationally useful. It was uploaded 3 years ago, is not used in any other Wikimedia project and is not realistically useful. - 212.183.20.34 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think cat images are always in scope ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The trigger for starting this request was indeed my Usurp Request followed by a discussion with EugeneZelenko, ie could be seen as a conflict of interest. But leaving aside what triggered the whole thing: The request itself is formally correct. The picture really is not educationally useful. I just happened to notice it, because it affected by Usurp request. --212.183.20.34 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Time of upload and the fact of an image not being in use dont make it out of scope, and this image is well inside scope. Tm (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to quote parts of Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose then:
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.- Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject--212.183.20.34 10:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)- The above argument can be made for any single image in a category, which individually taken would not seem to be extraordinarily more useful than the others in the same category. However if we were to follow the logic of deleting all such images, we would be diminishing the diversity of images available as a resource to our sister projects. In addition the educational remit of Commons is not just to serve our sister projects but also to act as a repository of freely useable educational media to projects outside of ours, not just now but in the future.--KTo288 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Picture of notable species. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No need for deletion.--KTo288 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per all comments russavia (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See this court decision:
Dr Langdell submitted that the claimant can have no copyright in its EDGE logo because it is not original over the Franklin Gothic typeface. I do not accept this submission. The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work: see Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 16th Ed at 3-130 and Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 287. The claimant's logo is original within this test.
This logo also has distinctive slashes (on the "r" and the "f"). The "f" is also joined with the "u", giving it additional originality. The "T" is also particularly distinct in that it is designed to look like a Christian cross (†), which is different from both an uppercase "T" and a lowercase "t". Per the court verdict, it seems that this logo is copyrighted in the source country. See also the previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. Stefan4 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - in the UK, this may be copyrightable, like it or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per UK precedent COM:PRP applies russavia (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See COM:FOP#Norway. no:Kari Rolfsen is still alive. Can be undeleted 70 years after his death. Stefan4 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See COM:FOP#Norway. 1972 statue by no:Stinius Fredriksen (1902-1977)[1]. US copyright expires in 2068. Norwegian copyright expires in 2048. Can be undeleted on 1 January 2068. Stefan4 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this page, no:Skule Waksvik (born in 1927, still alive) made a glass blower statue at Kauffeldtgården, Gjøvik, Norway in 1970. I'm guessing that Waksvik's statue is the one we see on this photo. Since the statue is so recent, it unfortunately means that the statue is copyrighted in both Norway and the United States, and COM:FOP#Norway only allows non-commercial FOP. Can be undeleted 70 years after the death of Waksvik. Stefan4 (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, and a copyright violation if this is a page from a published book. January (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the file has to be deleted since there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, and the building is modern Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination, unfortunately. Let's hope Russian govt gets its act together sometime soon russavia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused personal picture George Chernilevsky talk 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
See en:File:Gualberto Villarroel.jpg: image claimed to be non-free on English Wikipedia. Stefan4 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mi respuesta sobre la etiqueta de borrado de File:Gualb Vill.jpg
La imagen fue tomada de http://www.presidencia.gov.bo/ pero modificada. La posición oficial de la oficina de la presidencia de Bolivia es manifestada en la pagina de la vicepresidencia http://www.vicepresidencia.gob.bo/ la cual se rige mediante la Licencia "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License". No obstante yo reconozco que esta mal categorizada ya que aun no domino el uso de wikimedia commons. Pido se respete la imagen ya que solo se utiliza con fines didacticos, es frustrante ver que muchas imágenes que podrían simplemente categorizarse bien terminan borradas por individuos que no valoran el esfuerzo que tienen que hacer personas que viven en países donde el acceso a internet es bastante restringido para escribir un articulo y subir una imagen. User:Jolsuarez —Preceding comment was added at 2012-05-09T00:51:50 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Lidia.pdf. -- Common Good (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This file has no description, purpose or usage, it seems unlikely that it will be used in future. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as the person who transferred the file from the English Wikipedia. Logan Talk Contributions 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: http://www.hotelsmanchester.us/travelodge-hotel-didsbury-manchester.html -- Common Good (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"unknown" in en and fr means this file should be deleted Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've identified the object. But this image is all over the web e.g. here where it states
© Adagp, Paris 2006.There's no evidence of permission. Rept0n1x (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Common Good (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
no description, educational value or usage Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've identified the object. But this image is all over the web e.g. here where it states
© Adagp, Paris 2006.There's no evidence of permission. Rept0n1x (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Common Good (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Makka (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Makka (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uloader request. -- Common Good (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
no description, no utility or use Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Scaled down duplicate of File:Laberintodepontevedra.jpg Rept0n1x (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Common Good (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
no description, no utility or use Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Scaled down duplicate of File:Laberintodepontevedra.jpg Rept0n1x (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Common Good (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I named the baseball park incorrectly. Quadcities2012 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Renamed: File:Modern Woodmen Park 2.jpg. Please use {{Rename}} next time. -- Common Good (talk)
image is so tiny that it's practically illegible, there's no information about what exactly it is or where it comes from, it's not used on any pages except for places where people were referring to logos in general. Once this thing is gone, we should lock "LOGO.jpg" to make sure no one else tries uploading images with this name. DS (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : I agree : It is some cyber squatting --Civa (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo seems to come from http://www.avespatagonia.com/ (permission?) and is unused anyway ("use" on :de is probably an error due to the extremely generic filename). -- Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This logo seems not too simple for Commons. The page should be protected under recreation anyway. Otourly (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D work, so not covered by FOP-UK, and no indication that the original artist has released the work under a compatible licence. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Ashina
[edit]- File:Бауыржан Момышұлы - Психология Войны.jpg
- File:Аңыз адам журналы - Хан Кене.jpg
- File:Аңыз адам журналы - Әлихан Бөкейханов.jpg
- File:Аңыз адам - Әбілхайыр хан.JPG
- File:Аңыз адам журналы - Бауыржан Момышұлы.jpg
- File:Аңыз адам журналы - Мағжан Жұмабаев.jpg
Appear to be copyrighted media covers. Almost certainly not own work. --– JBarta (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Some of them list something which looks like the year of birth and the year of death of the subject of the pictures. Since some of those people lived a long time ago, there is a possibility that some of the pictures might be in the public domain because of age. Impossible to determine without more information, of course. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted russavia (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MastaAndreOfficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Images and self-made album covers for non-notable musician (related articles were speedily deleted on enwp, see w:User talk:MastaAndreOfficial). May be copyright issues with some of the album covers as they appear to be derivative works of other images.
- File:Hollywoods dead.jpg
- File:Single cover.jpg
- File:Always & Forever EP.jpg
- File:Diss The EP.jpg
- File:Emmotionless Me Official.jpg
- File:Just A Lil Sumtin' Sumtin' That Ain't Really Worth Nuttin' part 2.JPG
- File:Just A Lil Sumtin' Sumtin' That Ain't Really Worth Nuttin'.JPG
- File:42-SSO-3.jpg
- File:Karebear.jpg
- File:Emotionless Me.jpg
- File:My Burning Passion (I Love You).jpg
- File:Masta Äñdré repping GML.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
January (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP applies here russavia (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chandra bhushan singh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader appears to be the actor described in the newspaper articles, but that would not make him the owner of the articles and posters for productions he has appeared so not his to release under the claimed license.
- File:Phankhuri 1a.jpg
- File:Filmy.jpg
- File:Ram leela.jpg
- File:Ek akar ki.jpg
- File:In news hatya.jpg
- File:Madarsa.jpg
- File:Chandu321.jpg
- File:Chandu11.jpg
- File:Chandu22.jpg
- File:Chandra Bhushan Chauhan.jpg
January (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Chandra bhushan singh
Looks like collection of fan/promo photos, not own work.
- File:Chandrabhushan singh 2013-10-08 11-53.jpg
- File:Actor chandrabhushan singh in studio 2013-10-08 10-11.jpg
- File:ChandraBhushan Singh(born on 28 september 1987) is an Indian actor in both Theatre and Bollywood 2013-10-06 22-11.jpg
_is_an_Indian_actor_in_both_Theatre_and_Bollywood_2013-10-06_22-11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Gone --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
January (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
copyright violations from various sources, including unfree logos, professional group photos, … waste of time to identify them all, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Fkbowen. --Polarlys (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Ferris2010.jpg (see this stockphoto: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-791186/stock-photo-old-school-building-waxahachie-texas.html, a lot of hits without the watermark, e.g. http://www.planetware.com/picture/waxahachie-us-tx183.htm)
- File:Tlcenter.jpg (http://schools.wisd.org/users/0015/school.jpg)
- File:Richardspark.jpg (http://www.waxahachieindianbaseball.com/images/richards_park/park1.jpg)
- File:Waxahachieisdmap.jpg.png (http://sellcasa.com/waxahachie/waxahachie-isd-school-info/)
- File:Lumpkins.jpg (http://www.whs60now.com/50/Paige%20Hill%20Awardee.html, author "jlasswell")
- File:Clift.jpg (http://wisd.huckabee-inc.com/NewJH/index.html)
- File:Waxahachiehigh.jpg (http://schooldesigns.com/Portals/0/SD_Images/Projects/208as2077.jpg)
- File:Hachiechoir1.JPG (http://www.wix.com/tagdesign/choir#!gallery/photostackergallery4=0)
- File:Hachiechoir.jpg (http://classroom.wisd.org/webs/jieppert/director.htm)
- File:Hachieswim.jpg (http://www.whsarrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Regionals-466x350.jpg)
- File:Hachiedrama.jpg
- File:Hachietennis.jpg
- File:Hachiearrow.jpg
- File:Indiansbasketball.jpg
- File:Charmers.jpg (http://www.whscharmers.com/media-gallery/photos/album/2007-2008-games)
- File:Ndnsoftball.jpg
- File:Ndnband.jpg
- File:Ndngolf.jpg
- File:Lumpkinsstadium.jpg
- File:Lumpkinsndn.jpg (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/high-schools/waxahachie-news/headlines/20110927-waxahachie-s-34-foot-tall-mascot-back-in-action-better-than-ever.ece)
- File:Ndnfootball.jpg
- File:Ladyndnsoccer.jpg (http://www.waxahachieindiansoccer.com/women_rosters)
- File:Ndntrack.jpg
- File:Ndnbaseball.jpg
- File:Ndncrosscountry.jpg
- File:Ndnsoccer.jpg
- File:Hachieauditorium.jpg
- File:Inauditorium.jpg
- File:Ndnladytrack.jpg
- File:Ndnvolleyball.jpg
- File:Ndnbasketball.jpg
- File:Ndnladybasketball.jpg
- File:Ndn.jpg
- File:Wisd.JPG
- File:Globallab.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalcafeteria.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalcommons.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalart.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalhall.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalclass.jpg ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalhigh2010.JPG ©2008 PaulChaplo.com
- File:Globalwolf.JPG
Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: nuking the lot as per nomination russavia (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cszydlowski (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaded as own work, but two of them state "©2009 Blake J. Discher" in the EXIF which does not bear any resemblance to the uploader's name. All of the images appear on the subject's website [2], which has a copyright notice (all rights reserved).
- File:Josh TEDxDetroit.jpg
- File:Josh Linkner Font.jpg
- File:Josh Linkner Guitar.jpg
- File:Josh in Baton Rouge.jpg
January (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Наталья Видович (talk · contribs)
[edit]mmost likely not own work, different cameras, images can be found e.g. here (http://irene-nelson.com), looks like "fan upload"
- File:Irene at concert.jpg
- File:Irene N.jpg
- File:Vlad Tyurin.jpg
- File:Reflex 1.jpg
- File:RM project.jpg
- File:Logo ReflexMusic.jpg
- File:RD-LAD090.jpg
- File:Ntmglogo.jpg
- File:NTMG.jpg
- File:Ирина Нельсон 36.jpg
- File:Сольный концерт Ирины.jpg
- File:Ирина Нельсон1.JPG
- File:Фотография11.JPG
- File:Фотография 3.JPG
- File:Группа Reflex.jpg
- File:Reflex.png
- File:Группа Reflex.JPG
- File:Рефлекс.JPG
- File:Irina Nelson at yoga festival.JPG
- File:Irene Nelson.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson6.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson4.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson1.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson5.jpg
- File:Ирина Нельсон в международном йога-центре.JPG
Polarlys (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom COM:PRP applies russavia (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Наталья Видович (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images are from http://en.irene-nelson.com/ Not own work.
- File:For-wiki1.jpg
- File:For-wiki2.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson 5.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson 4.jpg
- File:Irene Nelson 1.JPG
- File:Irene yoga.jpg
Sealle (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
User is obviously uploading files grabbed from blogs and forums, I've already tagged 10 as copyvios. Some of the older-looking photos may be PD but this is difficult to verify without proper source/date information.
- File:Parque santander.jpg
- File:Pinturas ruprestes.jpg
- File:Teatro sogamoso fachada.jpg
- File:Plazoleta de cristo.jpg
- File:Plazoleta de sugamuxi.jpg
- File:Fuente sagrada.jpg
- File:Calle mochaca.jpg
- File:Calle 11 nueva.jpg
- File:Centro comercial iwoka.jpg
- File:Norte Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Terminal sogamoso.jpg
- File:Carrera 12.jpg
- File:6 de sep.jpg
- File:Rio monquira.JPG
- File:Fiesta del huan2.JPG
- File:Fiesta del huan.jpg
- File:Teatro sogamoso.jpg
- File:CARROZA desfile 002.jpg
- File:Mapa sogamoso historico.jpg
- File:FSolzz05112.jpg
- File:Coliseodsddd.jpg
- File:Comparsa1ggggdfhdh.jpg
- File:Cabalgatasoh.jpg
- File:Cabalgata 4.jpg
- File:Cabalgata 6.jpg
- File:Cabalgata 5.jpg
- File:Cabalgata 3.jpg
- File:Cabalgata 2.jpg
- File:Centro de convenciones la ramada.jpg
- File:Coliseo interior.jpg
- File:Iwoka.jpg
- File:Plaza principal de sogamoso en dia de feria 1898.jpg
- File:Lorenzo alcatuz -busto-.jpg
- File:Parque el laguito.jpg
- File:Humedal el cortes.png
- File:Construccion catedral.jpg
- File:Cacique o sacerdote chibcha.jpg
- File:Desfile descubrimiento del blason de sogamoso 1953.jpg
- File:Billete de 50 pesos banco de sogamoso.jpg
- File:Academia militar colegio sugamuxi 1939.jpg
- File:Ecot.JPG
- File:Cascadass.JPG
- File:Dsdd.JPG
- File:Piramides w.JPG
- File:PARAMO DE SISCUNSI Y CONDORES (1).jpg
- File:Cascada 3.JPG
- File:PARAMO DE SISCUNSI Y CONDORES (5).jpg
- File:PARAMO DE SISCUNSI Y CONDORES (3).jpg
- File:PARAMO DE SISCUNSI Y CONDORES (2).jpg
- File:Laguna de sisc.jpg
- File:Siscunsi 2.jpg
- File:Estadio olimpico el sol.jpg
- File:Panoramica sogamoso.jpg
- File:Carrera 11.jpg
- File:Centro sogamoso.jpg
- File:La canasta Sogamoso Centro.jpg
- File:Camara de comercio.jpg
- File:Integrado campeon.png
- File:Jojula.jpg
- File:Bandera sogamoso 2.png
- File:Bandera sogamoso.png
- File:Sogamoso-Nobsa.jpg
- File:Doble calzada Bogota - Sogamoso.jpg
- File:INTEGRADO SOGAMOSO.jpg
- File:Ferrocarril del norte.jpg
- File:Catedral Antigua Principios Siglo XX.png
- File:La pradera sogamoso.png
- File:Vereda morca.png
- File:PRADERA (24).jpg
- File:PLAZA DE TOROS 014.jpg
- File:Casa de la cultura o casa del corregidor.jpg
- File:Casa de la cultura (Casa del corregidor).jpg
- File:Catedral sogamoso.png
- File:Catedral interno.png
- File:La ramada.png
- File:Coliseo.png
- File:Morca urbano.jpg
- File:Virgen de la O de Morca.jpg
- File:Iglesia morca.jpg
- File:Ronda.png
- File:-Sta Barbara Sogamoso.jpg
- File:RIO MONQUIRA.png
- File:Paramo de siscunsi.png
- File:Laguna de siscunsi.png
- File:Cerro chacon.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
January (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP on the entire lot. We don't have time to go thru each individual file to ascertain its status -- if one has a high hit ratio for copyvio uploads, it's fair to assume the lot are. russavia (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images. Uploader has a history of copyvios.
- File:Casa del corregidor.jpg
- File:Plaza de la villa sogamoso.jpg
- File:Parte occidental de la plaza la villa.JPG
- File:INTEGRADO SOGAMOSO jgc.jpg
- File:Jojulascfs.jpg
- File:Iglesia catedral sogamoso.JPG
- File:Carrera 11 centro sogamoso.jpg
- File:Carrera 12 sogamoso.JPG
- File:Carrera 11 con calle 11 sogamoso.JPG
- File:Calle 11 con cra 14.jpg
- File:Morca sogamoso.jpg
- File:Plaza principal sogamoso 1969.jpg
- File:Bienvenidos a Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Parque de la villa.jpg
- File:Homenaje a Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Crecimiento urbano 1973.jpg
- File:PRADERA (27).jpg
- File:Escudo de Sogamoso 5.jpg
- File:Escuelas publicas.jpg
- File:Honores a la bandera de Sogamoso.JPG
- File:Fiestas de Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Bolivar llanero.jpg
- File:Plaza 6 de septiembre.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No OTRS permission for PD license, remains copyrighted to North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority unless permission is sent to COM:OTRS 153.107.97.157 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - for related discussion, see w:User talk:Fish and karate#Permission for File:Chip pan fire demo.jpg and File talk:Chip pan fire demo, North Yorkshire.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sysops need to be treated like any other editor. While sysops are seen by some in the community as trusted editors, we have seen in the past were Sysops have abused the trust by uploading photos as there own or claiming that they have permission when they didn't. 153.107.97.155 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is that a policy or precedent? If so, please link to it. If not, then perhaps the term "need" is just your opinion on that matter. After all, we do have Commons:License review. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sysops need to be treated like any other editor. While sysops are seen by some in the community as trusted editors, we have seen in the past were Sysops have abused the trust by uploading photos as there own or claiming that they have permission when they didn't. 153.107.97.155 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I am going to keep this tentatively and apply the OTRS no permission template. We need to be absolutely sure that photos are released under the conditions it is being stated as. This will give another 7 days lee-way. russavia (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Russavia as no permission (no permission since). OTRS didn't even start up until 2007 and the uploader has already stated the original email is gone[3]. There is no reason to insist on OTRS for an image that was uploaded before OTRS even existed. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate&diff=471307501&oldid=471257505#Permission_for_File:Chip_pan_fire_demo.jpg){kind=link}
Comment. Why doesn't someone just email the firemen again. I see no reason to delete a very old, low quality image, that would have no purpose for any copyright.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I did just that today and obtained permission. It's pending OTRS review. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission received for public domain license but requesting attribution. In the future it would be handy if you quoted the ticket number so we can find it faster. Non-admin closure, in accordance with policy that allows non-controversial keep closes by editors who understand the process. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture is most probably a copyright violation, copied from one of numerous sources from an uploader with no other edits. According to http://www.naanoo.com/news/bastian-schweinsteiger-sieht-weiterhin-glorreiche-zukunft-fur-fc-bayern the picture is copyrighted by the "dts Nachrichtenagentur". Jared Preston (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sem relevo enciclopédico. (I don't speak english). Tiago Gospel (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Indian stamp released in 2009, not CC-BY SA as claimed, and not PD per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#India. January (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Logos seems to come from http://www.avespatagonia.com/ (permission?) and is unused anyway. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The file is named "Kandahar-Herat highway" but we dont see any highway. No academic of the people in the bus/ train. No use or utility of the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This miniature-sized pic doesn't show anything properly, file not in used and unlikely to be used. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sadly there is no FOP in Ukraine. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, only upload of the user. Seems to be a paper of university seminar in spanish Traumrune (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D banner, containing enough creative input to be copyrighted. I don't think it gets by on FOP-UK merely by being mounted in a 3D way- it's still a 2D banner. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is of use unless "Kristýnina paleta" is explained. Is it a painting, name of a shade of coloers or what? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dubious own work. Looks like an art catalogue or something. Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D artwork. Artist died in 2011, will not be free image until 2082 Ronhjones (Talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D artwork. Artist died in 2011, will not be free image until 2082 Ronhjones (Talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D artwork. Artist died in 2011, will not be free image until 2082 Ronhjones (Talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused personal sign George Chernilevsky talk 18:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused personal sign George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused personal sign George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no entry for Bolivia at COM:CUR or COM:L, but the licence looks wrong. A work made in 1945 by someone who died before 1942? Stefan4 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The picture was published in an American newspaper. Therefore, the claim of Bolivian copyright is not actually supported by the source information. Could {{PD-US-not renewed}} apply? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Publication in an American newspaper does not prove or disprove anything - so the argument above is invalid. For example, if a picture is the public domain, an American newspaper can freely publish it, so the argument above is inconsequential. In support of my Keep rationale, the image is of a President of Bolivia: obviously any reasonable person would expect that Bolivian newspapers would publish a picture of their own president! It is thus reasonable to expect that the picture was indeed published by a Bolivian newspaper. That aside, because of its age (the subject died in 1946 - over 50 years ago), the picture would be beyond its copyright in Bolivia and thus worldwide. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Comment It is thus reasonable to expect that the picture was indeed published by a Bolivian newspaper. Besides being "reasonable" (something quite subjetive), have you got any evidence about this picture being published by a Bolivian newspaper and not, for example, be a work by an international photograph agency and being published, quite reasonably, in the US? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- What, to you, is an "international photograph agency"? Explain how it has any bearance on this matter,,, because I can't find it anywhere in Commons policies, even at COM:L nor at COM:EVID. Maybe you would care to explain what your international photogragh agency has to do with any of this. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
No, I don't have to explain anything. It's the other way around. The uploader (or any interested person) has to provide evidences of compliance with our policies. Otherwise the Commons:Precautionary principle applies. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, how convenient... to make a requisition for deletion and then evade a question. In any event, pointing to the COM:PCP does nothing to help your cause, for it states text that precisely ("where there is significant doubt...") supports the point I made earlier. And when "it is reasonable to expect that the picture was indeed published by a Bolivian newspaper", it is because there is "significant doubt" it was NOT published by your hypothetical "international agency". In addition and, in any event, whether or not it was "published in the US" has no bearance whatsoever here: It is not the place of publication what determines the PD status of a photo: it is who shot the photo and when. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
No, I'm not evading any question. The only (I repeat, the only) evidence we have about this photograph is to have been published in a US newspaper. You haven't provided any contradictory evidence, but a set of imaginative, but evicence-less, theories that do not refute the only available evidence... and now you ask me to refute your theories. No, it does not work that way (because you're right, "it is who shot the photo and when", and you haven't provided any evidence about such issues). --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This image was made as an official portrait by the Bolivian government and used by them )(example).--Ginés90 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- AP it's a distributor of content. Example: this image it's was taken by photographer Víctor Bugger for Argentina presidency (can upload the image in Wikimedia Commons!) but the british newspaper The Sun used the image and credit "Copyright 2012 News Group Newspapers Ltd and/or its licensors. No use without permission. Contact" (click in the image). --Ginés90 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- No sé muy bien inglés por eso escribo en español, Ecemaml, sabrás que hace poco el Ministerio de Comunicación de Venezuela difundió imágenes del presidente Chávez tras su operación en La Habana (véase la noticias en Wikinoticias); sin embargo, tiene crédito de fotos AP de las que no son, fotos de las que no es propietaria de los derechos de autor (porque el propietario en realidad es el gobierno de Venezuela)
- AP it's a distributor of content. Example: this image it's was taken by photographer Víctor Bugger for Argentina presidency (can upload the image in Wikimedia Commons!) but the british newspaper The Sun used the image and credit "Copyright 2012 News Group Newspapers Ltd and/or its licensors. No use without permission. Contact" (click in the image). --Ginés90 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- This image was made as an official portrait by the Bolivian government and used by them )(example).--Ginés90 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted The only use we have actually knowledge of is in the US, with an AP source. Unless someone can provide a citation to a publication in Bolivia, we must assume that the AP copyright applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D image; main text is OK, but I am pretty sure the Liverpool Echo's banner is above trivial and therefore copyrighted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D poster, containing sufficient creative input to be copyrighted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not applicable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment AFAIK such a patio (courtyard) belongs to the seat of the government of the en:Generalitat de Catalunya and the access to such a courtyard is public, isn't it? I mean, does it work as a museum or as a public place? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation of a non public domain 3D sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not considerable here as the photo was taken in an inside patio of a building Kippelboy (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete A work by en:Josep Maria Subirachs located in the interior of en:Palau de la Generalitat de Catalunya. --V.Riullop (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
and File:Vikipeediasse2.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
logo of commercial company. Miho (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Miho (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Has been deleted before, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo TCR.gif. Does not, in my opinion, seem to qualify for PD-text or PD-shape, no evidence that it has been released under CC-BY-SA. Pbech (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Support Does not support Commons regulations. Bonaber (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Andy, I think the licence for File:Naval pendants (Seaman's Pocket-Book, 1943).jpg might be incorrect. It says that "the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", when the copyright is clearly Crown Copyright. Furthermore, the licence says that the image "which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1942". It wouldn't have been made available to the public before 1942: not least because it was only published in 1943, and then only to the RN, surely? Please let me know what you think. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose it is a logo created by the OV-Bureau Randstad, an organisation created by the Dutch government. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not realeased under CC-BY-SA by the credited author. Not immediately clear that it would qualify for pd-shape or pd-textlogo either. Bestand is niet vrijgegeven onder CC-BY-SA door de aangegeven auteur; niet direct duidelijk dat dit onder pd-shape of pd-textlogo zou vallen. Pbech (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's {{PD-text-logo}} so its copyright status is not important. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Licensing cannot apply. Should either be pd-textlogo (but 'm not going to put that here, since I do not agree with that assessment) or this logo is not free. Pbech (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Not properly licensed, not simple text. Would need OTRS permission by the company. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Detail shot.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All architecture is copyrighted -- there is no exception for details, just as there is no exception for a single chapter of a literary work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
See COM:FOP#Ukraine. This is a trubute to the French book fr:Le Petit Prince, first published in 1943. As such, the sculptor can impossibly have died before 1942. As it is a derivative work of Le Petit Prince, we probably also have to wait until the works of fr:Antoine de Saint-Exupéry enter the public domain, and since France has a copyright term of life+88 years+120 days or life+100 years (contradictory information), this will take some time. There is also the US copyright term to consider. Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to Article 1 of The Law of Ukraine On Copyright and Related Rights “derivative work” — a work that is a creative remaking of another existing work without prejudicing the existing work's protection (annotation, adaptation, arrangement, version of a folklore item, other remaking of a work). Photo as derivative work is don't prejudicing the existing work's protection, cause don't block the realization of Author's Non-Proprietary (Article 14) and Proprietary (Article 15) Rights.
- Statue of The Little Prince situate in the central park (uk:Парк Лазаря Глоби) of Dnipropetrovsk. Photo of this statue don't prejudicing neither the Right of sculptor Volodymyr Nakonechnyi (his legislatives, cause he was died in 2010) not the Rights of Éditions Gallimard on commercial realization of text and translation. Skaerman (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Ukraine . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg, see that file's original state. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There are enough differences between the two files (colours, etc) that these aren't exact duplicates. Both files still in use, so discuss between all parties to ascertain which is correct, etc, etc russavia (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Re-opening DR. It's actually not in use (click on the supposed usage links, it's not on either of those articles, it's a server error, the same server error that says File:Royal CoA of Norway.svg is used in this Wikipedia article when it clearly isn't), hasn't been in use for god knows how long, it was simply a local copy of our Commons file brought down here from English Wikipedia on May 6th after sitting in it's backlogged Copy to Commons category for who knows how long, and there's no need for it to be here. If it was actually in use, then maybe there would be an argument for it to stay until "all parties agree to it's deletion", but that's not the case. Fry1989 eh? 00:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept The file is significantly different to the other file (colours, etc), that it is not a duplicate. We leave it up to editors to use whichever file they like. Additionally, superseded images require consent before they are deleted, and we do not yet have that in this instance. russavia (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONSENT because YOU keep keeping the file before anybody in the community can say one way or another if they feel it should stay or go. It's NOT in use, it never was in use, it was a Wiki-EN local copy, thse are facts! Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The colors and sizes are different, so it is not really a duplicate. If the colors on one version are incorrect (what are Tonga's coloration standards?), then that would probably be grounds for deletion, but as it stands now I don't think there is a reason to delete. Michael Barera (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't just about it being a duplicate of our 4-year old Commons file in it's original state. This is about it being nothing more than an unused Wiki-En local copy of our Commons file that's not in use and hasn't been in use for years. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep So what if it's a duplicate of our existing Commons file as it existed four years ago. The fact is that the Commons file has been changed, and now the two files differ. Let users pick which one they prefer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - looking at the thumbnails in Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Tonga, this seems to be an exact duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking closely enough, I can see the differences between the files which I know exist from looking at the full size versions even in the category thumbnails. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try looking at the bigger file Pieter. What a silly reason to delete because the thumbnails look the same. russavia (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Subtle differences are a silly reason to keep duplicates. The bloated size is a good reason to prefer the smaller one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- These kinds of differences are pretty important from a heraldic perspective, and unless you are an authority in the field and are prepared to bring evidence to the table showing that these differences are unimportant in this case, I am not sure why you think it's okay to be so cavalier with deletions. In any event, COM:D allows deletion where "it is exactly the same content (colours, quality, etc)", not someone's subjective opinion that the differences are "subtle". And in terms of files that are redundant, which appears to be what you are suggesting, the policy says "At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version". Other than your surprising/dubious claim that a 138 KB file is "bloated", no one here has yet to explain why this file is clearly inferior to the other version. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blatant nonsense. In heraldry, only the blasoning is significant. That is what makes different CoA's different. Heraldically, these two images are exactly the same. This 138 kB version is very bad SVG, it contains a large bitmap. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but then this file is as legitimate as the other. Just because there is no heraldic disntinction does not make them duplicates for our purposes, as they are two different interpretations. And as for your views as to the quality of the SVG, that's the only argument for deletion I've heard thus far that goes to actual legimate reasons for deletion, but I would need to know if the problem you've identified is fixable, and whether we as a rule delete images with similar issues.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blatant nonsense. In heraldry, only the blasoning is significant. That is what makes different CoA's different. Heraldically, these two images are exactly the same. This 138 kB version is very bad SVG, it contains a large bitmap. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- These kinds of differences are pretty important from a heraldic perspective, and unless you are an authority in the field and are prepared to bring evidence to the table showing that these differences are unimportant in this case, I am not sure why you think it's okay to be so cavalier with deletions. In any event, COM:D allows deletion where "it is exactly the same content (colours, quality, etc)", not someone's subjective opinion that the differences are "subtle". And in terms of files that are redundant, which appears to be what you are suggesting, the policy says "At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version". Other than your surprising/dubious claim that a 138 KB file is "bloated", no one here has yet to explain why this file is clearly inferior to the other version. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Subtle differences are a silly reason to keep duplicates. The bloated size is a good reason to prefer the smaller one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep People had seven days to respond. They chose not to. Three DRs in a short period of time so you can get rid of an innocuous file is a waste of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just because nobody responds is NOT in any way a massive indication that everyone wants to kept, the same way it's not an indication that everyone wants it to go, what preposterous nonsense. If they really wanted it kept, they can take 5 seconds out of their life to say so. Did you know that we still have files up for deletion that have been waiting as long as November 2011?? 7 days is nothing. Fry1989 eh? 23:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a massive indication that everyone wants to keep it; it's a massive indication that nobody really wants to get rid of it. 7 days is policy; there's no reason not to close after 7 days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- If 7 days is policy, then why do we still have DRs as far back as November 2011, huh? If 7 days was policy, there's absolutely no reason for us to have DR backlogs that go months backwards. Fry1989 eh? 23:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a massive indication that everyone wants to keep it; it's a massive indication that nobody really wants to get rid of it. 7 days is policy; there's no reason not to close after 7 days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just because nobody responds is NOT in any way a massive indication that everyone wants to kept, the same way it's not an indication that everyone wants it to go, what preposterous nonsense. If they really wanted it kept, they can take 5 seconds out of their life to say so. Did you know that we still have files up for deletion that have been waiting as long as November 2011?? 7 days is nothing. Fry1989 eh? 23:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- My main argument is this. If both of these files were here on Commons at the same time, and were exact duplicates, eventually someone would add a dupe tag, and they would be merged or one of them would be deleted. If the merged file was then edited at a later date, what are the chances an Un-DR or Un-Merge request would be made? Probably zilch, infact I know it's zilch because I have NEVER seen a Un-Dr or Un-Merge request made because the new single file was subsequently altered. So why are you people so upset about a local copy of our Commons file that has been changed has to stay? It's almost the exact same circumstance, the only difference is one was on Commons and one was on Wiki-En. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is no duplication here. File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg is 138 kilobytes. File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg has multiple revisions but none of them is 138 kilobytes. Thus, the files are different. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now they are different, they weren't before, which is what I said in my very first DR. Fry1989 eh? 01:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're saying that the nominated file is the same as an old revision of the other file, aren't you? But there is no old revision of the other file which matches the file size of the nominated file. Rd232 (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now they are different, they weren't before, which is what I said in my very first DR. Fry1989 eh? 01:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete?? On the one hand, the files are visibly different. On the other hand, their difference is in colours and borders. If User:Fry1989 proves that this official coat of arms cannot appear in two different colour variants, as soon as it has officially stated colours, it will be fair to remove one of the files. Yet I cannot know which one has wrong (inofficial) colours.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. This isn't about what one is right and what one isn't.This file os exactly the same as the other one in it's original version. If this file hadn't been copied to Commons from English Wikipedia a week and a half ago, but instead deleted because it wasn't in use up there (happens all the time), none of you would shed a tear or even know about it! It's the same file, the only difference is that the one that's been here on Commons was updated back in 2010 according to Tongan sources, while this one sat unused on Wikipedia English. That's THE ONLY difference. Fry1989 eh? 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, Fry, you are missing the point. You need to understand that we get the point you are making - we just don't think it makes the case for deletion. You repeating it umpteen times doesn't help your case. I don't care about the files' respective upload histories, what might have happened had history occurred differently, that they were once identical, etc. It's all water under the bridge. The fact is that today they are different files. We have two perfectly good images. Unless you can show that one is blatantly incorrrect and misleading, let users decided which one they prefer. We don't delete files because you have worked on/prefer a different version. We don't delete files for being duplicates when they are not duplicates (regardless of what might have been the case in February 2008 - we are looking at the files today). The only other excuse for deletion is project scope, and I am hard pressed to see how one could argue that this nominated file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose on the grounds you've put forward thus far. This is a no-brainer keep.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the point made to me perfectly fine, meanwhile my point is being ignored. I nominated the file for deletion, it's my job as nominator to argue why I feel it should be deleted. The fact also is that I've already acknowledged that they are TODAY different files, I have acknowledged that from the beginning of my very first nomination and if you people can't read and see that, it's your problem, but stop beating me over the head with something I SAID the first time before anybody even came across this DR! Fry1989 eh? 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue what you are talking about. And no one is ignoring your point. It's just not very convincing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You know exactly what I'm talking about. You deliberately underlined for emphasis "The fact is that today they are different files". Other people here have made similar points. What is ironic about it is, that's what I SAID in my very first nomination. I never said they're exactly the same in their current states, I have always said they are the same file, one was on Commons and has subsequently been altered, while the other was sitting on up English Wikipedia unused and ignored. That they are now different does not mean that they are not the same file. And if they were identical currently, and both on Commons, they would have been merged (or one would have been deleted) long ago, and nobody would even give a second thought if the new single file was subsequently altered. But yet you're saying it should stay now, only because of circumstance that the local copy happened to sit all alone on Wiki-En and wasn't brought down to Commons until after the Commons file was altered. It's the exact same circumstance, the only difference is timing. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- First, unless you are a mind-reader don't tell people what they do and don't know. Second, I honestly had no idea what your rant was about. Third, calm down. And, finally, I am very much aware what you said at the beginning. I can read. But then you repeatedly went on and on about how they were duplicates, but only if we focused on what was the case four years and pretended that all the relevant facts in this case were completely different. And it clearly needs to be said again that we delete duplicates only if they are identical currently. A couple of people have mentioned potential alternate grounds for deletion here, yet you seem single-mindedly focused on one unconvincin ground - deleting this non-duplicate as a duplicate. Anyway, I have had enough of this. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you think you're going to humble me, you're in the wrong place. Fry1989 eh? 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- What??? Sigh. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you think you're going to humble me, you're in the wrong place. Fry1989 eh? 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- First, unless you are a mind-reader don't tell people what they do and don't know. Second, I honestly had no idea what your rant was about. Third, calm down. And, finally, I am very much aware what you said at the beginning. I can read. But then you repeatedly went on and on about how they were duplicates, but only if we focused on what was the case four years and pretended that all the relevant facts in this case were completely different. And it clearly needs to be said again that we delete duplicates only if they are identical currently. A couple of people have mentioned potential alternate grounds for deletion here, yet you seem single-mindedly focused on one unconvincin ground - deleting this non-duplicate as a duplicate. Anyway, I have had enough of this. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You know exactly what I'm talking about. You deliberately underlined for emphasis "The fact is that today they are different files". Other people here have made similar points. What is ironic about it is, that's what I SAID in my very first nomination. I never said they're exactly the same in their current states, I have always said they are the same file, one was on Commons and has subsequently been altered, while the other was sitting on up English Wikipedia unused and ignored. That they are now different does not mean that they are not the same file. And if they were identical currently, and both on Commons, they would have been merged (or one would have been deleted) long ago, and nobody would even give a second thought if the new single file was subsequently altered. But yet you're saying it should stay now, only because of circumstance that the local copy happened to sit all alone on Wiki-En and wasn't brought down to Commons until after the Commons file was altered. It's the exact same circumstance, the only difference is timing. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue what you are talking about. And no one is ignoring your point. It's just not very convincing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the point made to me perfectly fine, meanwhile my point is being ignored. I nominated the file for deletion, it's my job as nominator to argue why I feel it should be deleted. The fact also is that I've already acknowledged that they are TODAY different files, I have acknowledged that from the beginning of my very first nomination and if you people can't read and see that, it's your problem, but stop beating me over the head with something I SAID the first time before anybody even came across this DR! Fry1989 eh? 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, today they are different files. Yet one of them is perfect, and another may have false colour, not the official ones. Fry1989 has to tell us which file is correct and which is not official.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. If one of these files is plainly incorrect, an argument could be made that it is out of scope. I wouldn't assume that one file is correct and the other incorrect (they may each contain correct and incorrect elements), and having seen people fight over these issues over the years, I also wouldn't assume that there is a clear answer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, Fry, you are missing the point. You need to understand that we get the point you are making - we just don't think it makes the case for deletion. You repeating it umpteen times doesn't help your case. I don't care about the files' respective upload histories, what might have happened had history occurred differently, that they were once identical, etc. It's all water under the bridge. The fact is that today they are different files. We have two perfectly good images. Unless you can show that one is blatantly incorrrect and misleading, let users decided which one they prefer. We don't delete files because you have worked on/prefer a different version. We don't delete files for being duplicates when they are not duplicates (regardless of what might have been the case in February 2008 - we are looking at the files today). The only other excuse for deletion is project scope, and I am hard pressed to see how one could argue that this nominated file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose on the grounds you've put forward thus far. This is a no-brainer keep.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. This isn't about what one is right and what one isn't.This file os exactly the same as the other one in it's original version. If this file hadn't been copied to Commons from English Wikipedia a week and a half ago, but instead deleted because it wasn't in use up there (happens all the time), none of you would shed a tear or even know about it! It's the same file, the only difference is that the one that's been here on Commons was updated back in 2010 according to Tongan sources, while this one sat unused on Wikipedia English. That's THE ONLY difference. Fry1989 eh? 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't re-read all the above since I started looking at this (so be kind when pointing out my mistakes :-) but consider this:
- File File:SilaTonga.svg was uploaded [4] by Tauʻolunga on 18 August 2006
- A copy was uploaded to en:wiki as en:File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg on 22 May 2007
- File File:SilaTonga.svg was slightly modified by Zscout370 on 23 May 2007
- The modified file File:SilaTonga.svg was reuploaded as Image:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg and the original deleted (at a time when file renames weren't available)
- So the en:Wiki copy was a direct ancestor of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg but missing in the upload history because to the old way of doing file renames. I asked for the old upload history of File:SilaTonga.svg to be merged into the history of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg where it belongs (thanks go to User:Rehman).
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3ASilaTonga.svg+&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=){kind=link}
- Why Jeff G took a copy to en:Wiki I don't know, thanks to User:Fry1989 for finding this lost ancestor, but I agree that it was a mistake to bring this ghost back home to haunt us. We now have a copy of this exact version in the visible history of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg, therefore if this version is not actually useful and this copy was never used in any article (it was the en:Wiki copy that was used in an article), I actually agree with User:Fry1989 and this copy can be deleted.
- (NB In general "other versions" should not be deleted, non-controversial revisions of SVGs can overwrite old versions but the old versions should always be available so others can follow the revision history and possibly split off a different version if there are competing views about which version is useful.) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. But, as I said above, I don't disagree with any of the history as you've set out, but it's water under the bridge. The files are not copies at this time. And as Pieter pointed out above, neither one of them is more correct than the other. The history is irrelevant by this point given the facts that exist today. There are no grounds at Commons:Deletion policy that would justify deletion of this file. The suggestion that this file can be deleted because a duplicate of it exists in the file history of another file (and thus this file can be recreated at a later date) is bizarre (and fundamentally unhelpful to Commons users, who when looking for files are now presumably expected to dig through file histories and recreate files they want). I'm puzzled by the level to which people seem hellbent on deleting files that are not duplicates because of what happened years ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact remains that if this file were newly uploaded today, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So to delete it because of its tortuous history is just silly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with your sentiments about people wanting to delete files (especially considering "deletion" is just "hiding" from general view - if a file is on Commons, it is absolutely no use if it is hidden). A file available in another files upload history is very visible and doesn't require any digging to use. If this file had been specifically extracted from the history because it was used somewhere, I'd definitely say keep it, but it is sort of as though it was accidentally extracted for no particular reason, whereas other revisions which seem just as useful were not. I actually see the real problem is that for reasons best known to themselves, en:wiki likes deleting files no longer in articles, just seems like a good way to make it difficult to obtain an intact version of an article as it existed at some particular date in the past. Anyway, little gained by keeping this file, but little gained by "deleting" it either (now that it's here), this is one file I'm not going to worry about either way. I trust, now that opinions have been exhaustively discussed, that all parties will just let it go whatever the closure decision is this time. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- (Also see my views on Commons talk:Avoid overwriting existing files about situations were it is convenient to keep files in a sort of upload stack, if it is unlikely that people will want to use the component parts of a composite image seperately (eg frames in a focus stack, animation, or panorama). It does sometimes make sense to have frames or (in this case) revisions available should a need for them ever arise, but might be a pain to have each frame/revision as a seperate file - further contributions to that discussion would be gratefully accepted :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- You do know that past revisions are always available to be reverted back to, or downloaded and then subsequently uploaded separately if the need ever arises. It's alot more efficient then keeping an old revision as a separate file in the anticipation that it may be needed in the future. Still no real argument here for this to be kept. Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- A lot more efficient in what sense? It will prevent many of our users from using these files; there's no trivial method to upload an old revision as a new file, preserving all legal marks and proper history, and a lot more users use files then ever upload them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes there is! You just use DerivativeFX, and use the existing file as a source for the historical revision you're uploading, it's incredibly simple. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, we can just keep this file, and not require anyone to jump through such hoops. Now all Commons users are expected to not only dig through file histories to find files, but also use DerivativeFX. Tremendous. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again you're missing the point. The argument you people are making for this to be kept is that it may be used at some point in the future. Not only is that anticipatory of something that may or may not happen, it ignores the fact that if this fie hadn't been brought to Commons, nobody would have known about it and it never would have been used. So far, nobody's shown interest in using this file. We don't keep historical revisions of files here in the anticipation that somebody may or may not want to use it in the future. If they feel a historical revision is more accurate, they can revert back to it or start a discussion on the talk page, or if they want the historical revision separately, they can use DerivativeFX and upload it. It's incredibly straight-forward and simple, unless your names are Prosfilaes and Skeezix1000. Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, we can just keep this file, and not require anyone to jump through such hoops. Now all Commons users are expected to not only dig through file histories to find files, but also use DerivativeFX. Tremendous. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes there is! You just use DerivativeFX, and use the existing file as a source for the historical revision you're uploading, it's incredibly simple. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- A lot more efficient in what sense? It will prevent many of our users from using these files; there's no trivial method to upload an old revision as a new file, preserving all legal marks and proper history, and a lot more users use files then ever upload them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- You do know that past revisions are always available to be reverted back to, or downloaded and then subsequently uploaded separately if the need ever arises. It's alot more efficient then keeping an old revision as a separate file in the anticipation that it may be needed in the future. Still no real argument here for this to be kept. Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact remains that if this file were newly uploaded today, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So to delete it because of its tortuous history is just silly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. But, as I said above, I don't disagree with any of the history as you've set out, but it's water under the bridge. The files are not copies at this time. And as Pieter pointed out above, neither one of them is more correct than the other. The history is irrelevant by this point given the facts that exist today. There are no grounds at Commons:Deletion policy that would justify deletion of this file. The suggestion that this file can be deleted because a duplicate of it exists in the file history of another file (and thus this file can be recreated at a later date) is bizarre (and fundamentally unhelpful to Commons users, who when looking for files are now presumably expected to dig through file histories and recreate files they want). I'm puzzled by the level to which people seem hellbent on deleting files that are not duplicates because of what happened years ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- "[i]f this fie hadn't been brought to Commons, nobody would have known about it and it never would have been used" - That's true of every file on the Commons.
- "So far, nobody's shown interest in using this file." If that's a rationale for deletion, then there are millions of unused files on Commons that ought to be deleted too. Will you be nominating them all? I am being facetious, of course, since Commons does not exist solely to service Wikipedia projects, and none of us has any idea if this image has actually been used or been useful to anyone. As long as COM:SCOPE is met, we assume that the file will be useful. Since this file is as correct as the other interpretation, I fail to see how this is out of scope.
- "If they feel a historical revision is more accurate, they can revert back to it or start a discussion on the talk page, or if they want the historical revision separately, they can use DerivativeFX and upload it." Or we could simply not delete files that are not duplicates of one another, and thus not force Commons users to jump through hoops like that and actually let them choose themselves between the two versions.
In any event, are you saying that if this file is deleted, we can revert File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg to the version that was identical to this one? That is what you appear to be saying.
- "It's incredibly straight-forward and simple, unless your names are Prosfilaes and Skeezix1000." That was unnecessary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This file is a duplicate of the other, they're the exact same file (which is different from "revision"), so stop pretending it isn't. Nor am I saying that this should be deleted and File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg should be reverted to it's original revision. What I said and have always said is that if people feel that a historical version of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg is more accurate (so far, NOBODY has even attempted to make that claim so it's bizarre that you would suggest it), they have a choice of A: reverting to the revision they feel is better, B: starting a discussion on the file talk page, or C: separately upload the historical revision they prefer. That's a very simple concept. But we don't keep two files which are exactly the same thing simply because one was on one Wikimedia project and one was on another, and they were subsequently brought to the same project after a point at which one had been altered. You think we should keep it because somebody may want to use it some day, some where. That's not a valid reason to keep something, especially not a duplicate. So yes, my final sentence was neccesary, because the two of you seem to overlook the simplest of resolutions for this in favour of keeping a file that would have been deleted or merged as a dupe if both of these files were on the same Wikimedia project together while under the same revision. Fry1989 eh? 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- They are not duplicates. They quite evidently differ from one another. I never said this version was more accurate (could you please point to where I said that?).
"You think we should keep it because somebody may want to use it some day, some where. That's not a valid reason to keep something, especially not a duplicate." Again, it's not a duplicate. We do not delete files on Commons solely because they are not being used on Wikipedia. As long as it is in scope, we assume that it is useful and may be used. Commons does not exist solely to serve the Wikipedia projects. There are no grounds in Commons:Deletion policy which would justify the deletion of this file.
"So yes, my final sentence was neccesary, because the two of you seem to overlook the simplest of resolutions for this" Besides the fact that your proposed resolution is far from simple, it is never necessary to be uncivil of to fail to assume good faith. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- They are not duplicates. They quite evidently differ from one another. I never said this version was more accurate (could you please point to where I said that?).
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This file is a duplicate of the other, they're the exact same file (which is different from "revision"), so stop pretending it isn't. Nor am I saying that this should be deleted and File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg should be reverted to it's original revision. What I said and have always said is that if people feel that a historical version of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg is more accurate (so far, NOBODY has even attempted to make that claim so it's bizarre that you would suggest it), they have a choice of A: reverting to the revision they feel is better, B: starting a discussion on the file talk page, or C: separately upload the historical revision they prefer. That's a very simple concept. But we don't keep two files which are exactly the same thing simply because one was on one Wikimedia project and one was on another, and they were subsequently brought to the same project after a point at which one had been altered. You think we should keep it because somebody may want to use it some day, some where. That's not a valid reason to keep something, especially not a duplicate. So yes, my final sentence was neccesary, because the two of you seem to overlook the simplest of resolutions for this in favour of keeping a file that would have been deleted or merged as a dupe if both of these files were on the same Wikimedia project together while under the same revision. Fry1989 eh? 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Info I came across Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:SilaTonga.svg, the original reason this was moved to en:wiki was because Jeff G. thought it should only be used under "fair use" and was trying to get it deleted from Commons. Not particulary relevant, but it explains why it came to be there. --121.73.5.55 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. I think we can let go of the file, per Tony Wills's comments and the fact that it is not used anywhere, it is essentially an older version of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg, it is included in that file's history and its code is way more inferior, larger and troubled, than the newer file. Badseed talk 20:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. No PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like geometric shapes and text only, so yes, it is pd-textlogo. Zanaq (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose it is pd-textlogo. Bonaber (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like PD-textlogo to me, at least in US, no strong argument that it's not. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Miho (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a logo created by the Gelderland province. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged {{PD-NL-Gov}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Does not fall within the scope of art. 15b of the Dutch copyright act (Auteurswet) unless it can be shown that this logo was indeed published by a public authority and not by Syntus (the domain veluwelijn.nl is owned by Syntus, this can be checked on https://www.sidn.nl/nc/over-nl/whois/). Valt niet onder art. 15b Auteurswet tenzij kan worden aangetoond dat dit logo door de openbare macht is openbaar gemaakt (bijv. de provincie Gelderland) en niet door Syntus zelf (www.veluwelijn.nl is eigendom van Syntus, dat is na te gaan op https://www.sidn.nl/nc/over-nl/whois/) Pbech (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be the logo of a bus line, see nl:Veluwelijn (buslijn). Even if this bus line is owned by the public, I do not see how {{PD-NL-Gov}} applies here. There remains the question whether this logo falls under the threshold of originality. This could be very well the case given its simplicity. But unfortunately, we have currently no information about Dutch case law in this regard at Commons such that it seems best to delete it for now. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. It has not been ascertained that this is indeed a government publication, see also previous deletion request(s). Pbech (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have speedily deleted this as this is just a new upload of an already deleted image. To my knowledge, no request for restoration has been put at COM:UDEL, no other community discussion has taken place, and nothing has been presented that puts the previous conclusion into doubt. If this is to be challanged, this has to go to COM:UDEL. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Incorrect, the logo is property of the Gelderland province. Bonaber (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged {{PD-NL-Gov}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Veluwelijn.png : no reliable source given to back the claim that this is a government publication. Pbech (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a logo created by the Stadsregio Arnhem-Nijmegen, an organisation created by the Dutch government. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged {{PD-NL-Gov}}. Probably also {{PD-textlogo}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
British Sub-Aqua Club
[edit]
Club founded in 1953. I tagged the JPG file as {{Copyvio}}, but User:RexxS found out that the PNG logo was listed as PD, so he declined the request. Assuming that the logo was created after the club was founded, the logo can't be PD because of age, so we need OTRS confirmation for the PNG logo. "Source: net" is not enough. If one logo is deemed to be unfree, the other logo is presumably also unfree, although the low threshold of originality maybe could make one image free and the other one unfree. See also the discussion at File talk:BSAC logo.jpg#CSD declined. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a regular contributor to Wikimedia or Wikipedia and I am not sure why you consider the use of an organisation's logo on the Wikipedia page about that organisation to be copyright violation. Organisations wish to promote themselves - they don't seek permission for their logo to be used in relation to themselves, in fact I'm not sure what copyright law you think would prevent this use.
- The original BSAC logo has not been in use for some years, and the one I recently uploaded can be verified as the correct one at bsac.com - why is more information than this needed? It is either is or isn't the correct logo - it is a statement of fact not a copyright issue! Have you heard of "fair usage"!? - Wahahey
- I have heard of fair usage, but unfortunately Commons does not host files under "fair usage" rules, as all of the content here has to be licensed for re-use for any purpose whatsoever - not just for use on Wikipedia. I seriously doubt that BSAC wants their logo to be distributed for the whole world to use as they see fit, which can be done with any file on Commons.
- Fortunately, Wikipedia itself hosts fair use images for use on Wikipedia under strictly defined conditions, so I was able to upload a version to en:File:BSAC logo 2012.png and include a fair usage rationale, then substitute it in the article. I know it's hard for a non-regular contributor to see why there has to be this difference between where a file is hosted, and I apologise for the confusion, but none of this is malicious, and I hope that the result is acceptable to all.
- As far as this deletion request is concerned, I believe that all of the files containing the BSAC logo are copyright BSAC and should be deleted from Commons. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect classifications invented by uploader (or an oversight), out of scope. Only one of these have ever been classified as Wellnhoferia. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is with File:Archiesizeall1.png and File:Archiesizeall1.svg? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- They have correct captions (only one specimen is referred to as Wellnhoferia) Perhaps it is just a matter of editing the SVG (which I don't know how to do). FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I could correct the wrong taxonomy, but not worth it, the other files are correct. Must be deleted. --PePeEfe (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- They have correct captions (only one specimen is referred to as Wellnhoferia) Perhaps it is just a matter of editing the SVG (which I don't know how to do). FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Buggy SVG, not used anywhere. Leyo 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- This was for a Graphics Lab request, so if the requester has not bothered to use it - I admit I didn't see the error when uploading these in bulk - I see no real need to keep it. There are similar images to this which may in the same position. If fixing the error would be enough to save it, I can do so. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 06:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and fix the bug, no reason to delete it. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree on removing the deletion request once the SVG is fixed. --Leyo 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) PS. The same applies to File:Seal of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.svg.
- Keep and fix the bug, no reason to delete it. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Someone fix please FASTILY (TALK) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Source is discussed. Yann (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that other files of the same painting should be included: Category:Diego de Alvear. Yann (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Needs better source. There is currently no way to prove that it is indeed from the early 19th century. If the linked page indeed is a mirror of Wikipedia as stated by Martin H., the link proves nothing. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. What do you think about the information provided here: File:Diego de Alvear.jpg, which is the same painting IMO, but the image is reversed. Yann (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Improperly sourced. It is a photo of a painting and the licence only deals with the photo copyright and not with the painting copyright. Commons typically doesn't care about those photo copyrights anyway as they are not valid in the United States. es:Diego Abad de Santillán (1897–1983) seems to be the author of the book and not the painter of the painting. Given the information we have, the painting was made in 1971 or earlier, and that means that we can't rule out that it isn't copyrighted. Of course, if the painting was made while es:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León was still alive, the copyright will have expired by now, but we don't have any information about this. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. What do you think about the information provided here: File:Diego de Alvear.jpg, which is the same painting IMO, but the image is reversed. Yann (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the source of either, I am fairly certain that File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg and File:Diego de Alvear.jpg are not the same painting, though they are very similar, and possibly one is based on the other. But note that on File:Diego de Alvear.jpg, the bottom crop occurs below the third visible button, which is the first to be buttoned, and the side-to-side crop includes the entirety of each arm. If one were to crop File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg in such a manner, the resultant image would include a significant section of the telescope. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The black and white one is probably a derivative of the painting, probably an engraving made for a later printed work - it does appear to have been completely redrawn, slightly different proportions. Given that he died in 1830 at the age of 81 I can see little doubt that this is PD-Art. How often is a painting commissioned of a dead person?, only in exceptional circumstances. To have significant doubt that this was PD we would need to have at least an inkling of evidence as to why it was created after death. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless there are indications that these paintings would not be old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info The source inserted by Yann is obviously just as made-up as the uploader's "own work" claim. The page on esacademic.com containing http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/68/Diego_de_Alvear_y_Ponce_de_Le%C3%B3n.jpg is http://www.esacademic.com/dic.nsf/eswiki/350209, meaning they sourced it from us and not the other way around. A much more likely source predating the Commons upload is http://www.unjubilado.info/2008/11/07/el-tesoro-de-las-mercedes/. The version hosted on Commons has been poorly upscaled, distorted (the subject's head is rounder in the unjubilado.info version and on the photos Pieter provided) and oversharpened, and it's had its border darkened, but it's pretty clear that it's the same reproduction. The caption at http://www.publico.es/agencias/efe/205135/un-descendiente-del-almirante-diego-de-alvear-quiere-recuperar-su-memoria suggests that the original might be part of the collections of the Naval Museum of Madrid. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- So the source is changed and the discussion is closed then? Yann (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- And the wrong writing "author unknown" must be removed from the author field. See the article provided by Pieter, the two paintings are mentioned in the article, there are institutions that can be asked about painter and date. Its not up to us to decide if a painter is unknown or not and its not up to us to decide at what date a painting is created. We are not here to invent history, we only collect it. --Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD apparently FASTILY (TALK) 02:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
