Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
crosswiki abuse Quentinv57 10:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photograph is according to the EXIF information copyrighted, though distributed by US Navy. Copyright holder is given as: "Lockheed Martin Corporation 2012 - All Rights Reserved - Use with Permission." Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Motopark (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Page has been deleted, private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality of an existing SVG flag. This file is not useful. See File:Flag of Europe.svg Benoit Rochon (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality of an existing SVG flag. This file is not useful. See File:Flag of Belgium.svg Benoit Rochon (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is to suppose that only those RIAN images are available under CC-BY-SA which have been uploaded here by RIANbot (unless otherwise stated by RIAN, what is not the case here). A.Savin 18:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear case, copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a date on the last line on the sign and the date is less than 70 years ago. Given the language of the description, I take it that the artwork is in Ukraine, and COM:FOP#Ukraine seems to be a problem here. Stefan4 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The situation here is similar to File:Chernobyl memorial Bor.jpg. So let's discuss both cases there to avoid write too much.--Stanislavovich (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We can only hope that Ukraine sometime in the future allows FOP. Until then, we have no option but to delete this file under COM:FOP#Ukraine. Have added the Ukrainian FOP category for easy undeletion in future if laws change. russavia (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chernobyl memorial Bor.jpg: claimed to be from 2009 in Ukraine. Deletion needed per COM:FOP#Ukraine. Stefan4 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per COM:FOP#Ukraine - Alison ❤ 18:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We can only hope that Ukraine sometime in the future allows FOP. Until then, we have no option but to delete this file under COM:FOP#Ukraine. Have added the Ukrainian FOP category for easy undeletion in future if laws change. russavia (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Useless. Grainy Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep No reason for deletion. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not useless Lymantria (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, Nazi imitator (illegal in some european countries) Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, might be bullying as well Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, (Nazi imitation is illegal in some European countries) Chesdovi (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, might be bullying as well Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. All other user's uploads were advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
What Commons still miss in Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Denniss (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Videogame logo (Resident Evil) the user releases it to the public domain, when the image has clearly copyright ( CAPCOM company). Ileana n (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. False claim of authorship by uploader. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Elcobbola as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: promotional photo, not user made. See, for example, http://www.deepdishdough.com/about. Would require OTRS Sreejith K (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, and speedy. Blatant copyvio; I have no idea why this wasn't speedied as nominated. It has appeared on the company's official site since at least May 2009 (see here at archive.org), yet it was uploaded to the commons in 2011 (i.e., the company did not acquire it here). User has other copyvios (and nothing but) in their stream. Delete now and restore when/if OTRS permission is received (if uploader is actually a representative of the company - doubtful). Why would we let it sit for another 7 days, time in which a visitor unfamiliar with warning templates could find the image and reuse it believing it (wrongly) to be free? Эlcobbola talk 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
None of the sites that Google Image Search found, including two that could be described as institutions, gave any indication of a free license. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: No clarity on copyrights being owned by uploader. Possibly copy-vio. Also, the biographical article that used this image is deleted from Wikipedia. No point in keeping this image with possible doubts of being a copy-vio. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
At http://www.flickr.com/photos/soylentgreen23/533057198/ it is licensed with a NC-license. Is fotopedia.com in error? Lymantria (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - it is quite possible that fotopedia is correct, and the author changed license on flickr from CC to CC-NC some time after 2009, but unfortunately, we can't trust fotopedia on that. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unverifiable license claim Lymantria (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
page has been deleted, unknown band picture Motopark (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The architect en:Bernard Tschumi is still alive and there is no FOP in France. russavia (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image no longer exists on Flickr. Low resolution version is uploaded. The author to who the image is attributed uploads all images as a non-free license. X96lee15 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Erlenmeyer (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Duplicated file - Bandera de La Guardia de Jaén.svg Erlenmeyer (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Copyvio (photo can be found on many other site prior 2012 : [1] or [2]) . VIGNERON (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Licence looks wrong, presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of [3], I uploaded this before I knew how the Commons worked. Albacore (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio McZusatz (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
At least one source file was deleted as copyvio, see [4] Denniss (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Rabbiamar.jpg){kind=link}
- Problem solved - "Rabbiamar.jpg" was relaced with File:Silviosantos.jpg. Is this ok? The Ogre (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Should be OK now. But the closing admin should delete the two old versions still containing the copyvio image. --Denniss (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, but removed the first two versions. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dzlinker as Speedy (4 pictures of the mosaic are presented as beeing in PD, though 2 links doesn't exist (the first two) and 2 pictures are sourceless) Multichill (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I restored this file so it can be cleaned up: Some sources need to be added (or restored) and some images might need to be removed/replaced. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeh but nothing changed since your restoration. It should be deleted -Dzlinker (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted pr discussion. --JuTa 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio of http://www.headwallphotonics.com/Portals/145999/images/Hyperspec%20In-Line%20Inspector_2012_white_small.jpg Holyoke, mass (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
License does not apply. This is not a literary work. 95.166.78.149 06:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The file is a small thumbnail-version File:Waidbruck Eisenbahnübergang.jpg, uploaded in 2005 as a license violating copy of the original upload on de.wikipedia. Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
description says "foto rostro de un hombre" if this could indicate any ordinary man, I wonder if it should be retained. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is privait data. Indeen (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Its a pity that this person uploaded an image of himself on commons and used in an article on himself on the FRench Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Greece and the architect en:Bernard Tschumi is still alive. russavia (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission for a free use given 188.104.109.32 11:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution; all of uploader's other images have been copyvios. Appears to be from IFFR website (2012 appears to have been replaced by 2013) Эlcobbola talk 16:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- == Français ==
- Il n'est utilisé par aucune page Wiki et n'est qu'une (mauvaise, à mon humble avis) copie d'un autre fichier utilisé à travers toutes les pages wiki (toutes langues confondues) traitant du sujet (Coupe d'Afrique des Nations). L'utilisateur qui a chargé ce fichier a été bloqué définitivement par Saibo suite à une utilisation abusive de ce fichier. Je suis disponible pour en discuter. Merci. Pacific kiribati (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- == English ==
- This File is not used by any wiki page and is a mere (bad, in my humble opinion) copy of another file widely used across all other wiki pages (all languages) dealing with the subject (African Cup of Nations). Skydiver777 who uploaded this file has been indefinitely blocked by Saibo for abusive use of this file. I am open to discussion with anyone interested in this. Thanks!
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No license information Agora (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Source is 'I recived it from a friend'. Probably not released under Public Domain. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
修正しました。
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose Bestiasonica (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is. Multichill (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you arguee why it is? There are thousands of images of sunrises. Which is the characteristical issue that does this image gives to the project? --Bestiasonica (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We leave it up to others to decide whether they wish to use the file or not. It is within scope. russavia (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Low definition. There is no caracteristic isue of this beach. It could be any beach of white sand. It is not used in any main pages of Wikimedia project. Bestiasonica (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you show a better twilight image from that particular beach? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is really that beach? How can you know? There are thousands of images which could be the same. There is no characteristical issue which indicates that is that beach and no other. There is no “realistically” useful for an educational purpose. --Bestiasonica (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is. Multichill (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We leave it up to others to decide whether they wish to use the file or not. It is within scope. russavia (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
1959 yearbook is in the public domain? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the tag. As it says, it was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice.Chowbok (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn then. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Badseed talk 23:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1959 yearbook is in the public domain? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Yes, because (as the tag says), it was published without a copyright notice.Chowbok (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn then. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Badseed talk 23:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo to old, no longer fully up to date, not the image of the band accordingly, band wants no live photo, Schäggi29 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep "Not up to date" is no reason for deletion. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reasons for deletion. Badseed talk 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
While I could not locate this map on the institute website, it looks like an official and professionally created map, not like own work, and there is no evidence of permission. Muhandes (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- whoa! I made the map while studying there. Thank you for the compliment! --PlaneMad 04:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. (with both apology and compliment) --Muhandes (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Badseed talk 11:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Appears to be a photo of a rapper called Elemint, so not just a personal photo, it would appear to be quite in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Elemint seems to be a real person/rapper however the article about him got deleted on en:wp as non notable per Wikipedia standards per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elemint. Badseed talk 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Too small pic to be of any use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - bad quality - Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Larger at File:Dado1-Model.pdf. Badseed talk 18:48, 12 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 [5] 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).
![[5]](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)
This file was initially tagged by Takabeg as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Copyrighted book cover". But I think it is too simple to be copyrightable at all. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am also confused by Takabeg's tagging this file as Copyvio. I uploaded this file after seeing the following files on Commons.
- File:BilingualDictionaries.jpg
- File:Diccionario de la Lengua Española, on side.jpg
- File:Book shelf 1r.jpg
- File:HAT5 met CD-ROM.jpg
- File:Lanch'chie du dictionnaithe Jèrriais-Angliais d.jpg
- File:Russian-Pashto-Dictionary.jpg
- File:Woordenboekfragment.jpg
- File:Multidictionnaire.JPG
- File:Chinese minority languages 05.JPG
What are your comments on those above, and what makes them acceptable and this Kurdish dictionary not? -MikaelF (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Túrelio, as you said, its too simple to be copyrightable and as MikaelF showed, there are dozens of similar samples. Therefore, if there is a rule, we should be fair to all. We cant just delete Kurdish dictionary and give permission to others. Thank you.--Gomada (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This one is a close call, but some of those listed above should be deleted. Note that book spines are probably not copyrightable, since they are just text and titles cannot be copyrighted. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France, obvious modern building still covered by copyright russavia (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
(I'm not sure how I am supposed to write anything here -- but this is my question:) Why should French law be applied to an entity (the wikimedia foundation and site) that is American, when the US has its own laws about photographs?
- Hi Vbritto, Commons policy is that works have to be free to use in both the home country and the US. As COM:FOP#France states that architectural works are not able to be freely used under freedom of panorama laws, any in-copyright French works need to be deleted from Commons until the underlying work (the building design) has passed into the public domain; i.e. 70 years after the death of the architect. russavia (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Credited to United Press, a non-governmental news agency. As such, this has a normal copyright term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? And weren't they bought by the library on congress or something? G-Man (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Says that right here. "Notes: United Press photo.". The description page does not have "no known restrictions", nor is a full size image available for download. For the LOC, this generally means they don't own the copyright. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Valeria Contreras (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:1295028991742 f.jpg
- File:JazminLV n.jpg
- File:Fjkgvberuigber n.jpg
- File:38492uyh6iy n.jpg
- File:Jazmin bailandon.jpg
- File:248831 227234763971404 10000054645454n.jpg
- File:Ar7pcZACMAIzd65.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Taken from the web, see filenames. Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hotels in Romania
[edit]As there is no FOP in Romania, these photos can't be hosted on Commons until 70 years after the death of the architect/design copyright holder.
- File:Buzau Hotel Pietroasele.jpg
- File:Colina Grande - front.jpg
- File:Hotel Capitol.jpg
- File:Hotel Roman.JPG
- File:Ramada Hotel, Sibiu.JPG
russavia (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:C-3PO
[edit]These are derivative works of a copyrighted design. Whilst the photos are taken in Spain where FOP is allowed, they are not free in the US.
russavia (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- If they are permanently situated in a FoP country Commons traditionally allows these images. See Commons:FOP. Delete Star Wars Exhibition Madrid 2009 is not a permanent exhibit. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not permanent, therefore the FOP exception does not apply. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:C-3PO
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted character.
- File:C-3PO (3343462989).jpg
- File:C-3PO at Star Tours–The Adventures Continue.jpg
- File:C-3PO at the Museum of Man.jpg
- File:C-3PO.JPG
- File:C3PO.jpg
- File:Star Wars and the Power of Costume July 2018 21 (C-3PO costume from Episode V).jpg
- File:Stockholm, Sweden (Unsplash OFpzBycm3u0).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Acropolis New Museum Building
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Greece and the architect en:Bernard Tschumi is still alive.
- File:Athens acropolis museum during sunset.jpg
- File:Constructing the new Acropolis Museum in Athens (2007).jpg
- File:Museo de la Acrópolis.jpg
- File:New Acropolis Museum 3.jpg
- File:The new Acropolis Museum as seen from the Acropolis.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is exaggerated. The law is unclear. I cannot understand your zeal and why you want to leave Commons with no photos of the Acropolis Museum. Dimboukas (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Corfu International Airport and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Airport towers in Greece. This discussion should be centralized somewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
New talk at Commons:Deletion requests/Deletion of panoramas in Greece.
Dimboukas (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion on these files needs to continue here, as they are independent of any other discussion. russavia (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, they are related and should be discussed in one place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The law is very clear. "Works of architecture" have a copyright. These images infringe. That is well settled on Commons as it was studied carefully three years ago. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Acropolis New Museum Building
[edit]There is no Freedom of Panorama in Greece. The Acropolis Museum is a work of Bernard Tschumi and Michalis Fotiadis (contractors, not employees). All nominated photos feature the copyrighted building as the main subject.
- File:20140408 athenes018.JPG
- File:Acropolis Museum 2014.JPG
- File:Acropolis Museum Building in Athens.jpg
- File:Acropolis Museum in 2014.JPG
- File:Acropolis Museum of Athens.JPG
- File:GR-akropolis-museum-eingang.jpg
- File:Rendering del nuevo museo de la Acrópolis - rendering of the new Acropolis museum.jpg
Geraki TLG 07:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/incosistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Ceviche Nicaraguense.jpg
- File:Napeogenes tolosa mombachoensis Brabant & Maes, 1997.jpg
- File:Orquidia de Mombacho.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom, probable violations. Badseed talk 23:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation. Stoneman died in 1958; UK law gives 70 pma for photographs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- User:BartBassist may be Stoneman's son.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- But without any proof of that we have to take the safer path, namely deleting the image. The fact that the uploader has had numerous copyright warnings before makes it rather obvious that he is not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have had numerous copyright warnings before, but none of them for Stonemans, and all of them for uploads made in good faith. For this one I believed that, as Commons offers a PD-50 template, 50 pma (i.e. 2008) was a viable option. If it has to be deleted, please ensure that its various uses on wikipedia are replaced with File:RA Butler cropped.png, which is definitely in the public domain. BartBassist (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
