Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep aggreement with Stepro. This is why it is nonsense: Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_public_place--Wuselig (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Unambiguously within policy limits. No reason to consider this for deletion. Dschwen (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.hyperstealth.com/Mig29/index.html Also, all photos from the Official Homepage of the Slovak Air Force (http://www.vvzs.mil.sk/) and the Slovak Ministry of Defence page on the Slovak Air Force are copyrighted. Mircea87 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There are some off-site publications [ 1 ]. the user has a history of copyvio's. But most of all: this picture was obviously taken in a private setting, requiring consent to publication. Vera (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
no reason why PD-old-50 would apply here Liliana-60 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of better named File:BSicon uexLSTR+l1.svg -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely a copyvio since it's a derivative of the medal design? 99of9 (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It surely can't be any more so than any of the many other images in Category:Olympic medals? Prioryman (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious derivative work of the copyrighted medal Sandstein (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. If it's necessary I could blur all the faces. --McZusatz (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, vertrauten in den Fotografen haben und in meinen Augen ein Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, in meinen Augen Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Herr Kriss (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a poor quality cartoon of no encyclopaedic value. It only exists to tell a bad pun. Repeated attempts have been made to add it to the English Wikipedia article Bring radical[1], and consensus is repeatedly against it. Its only other use is on the userpage of User:CyborgTosser, who hasn't edited in five years. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on a userpage and several non-article pages. It's freely licensed and has no copyright problems. The value of not deleting images in some sort of use outweighs any value of deleting them, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
test test test Mask-gurman (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The EU flag is not used like this. Fry1989 eh? 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is used. The flag has two versions for printed uses in monochrome. One version in blue and other in black and white with border. Specifications can be read here: Graphics guide to the European emblem: Monochrome reproduction process --Robert Laymont (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use, so in scope. (Fry1989's argument is basically one of scope.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If in use, there is not much to say.Fma12 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Bad source, image looks like from a screenshot. Funfood ␌ 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a test upload. I don't need this any more. Wizardist (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused, out of COM:PS. Source of used photo unclear. Funfood ␌ 22:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Houla!... Yann (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of a film Ezarateesteban 23:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Author request Riley Huntley (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Author request Riley Huntley (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
complex logo, self promotion Robot Monk (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 6.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection - Page 1.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection - Page 2.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection - Page 3.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 4.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 3.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 2.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 1.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Korea Moonian (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, with plenty of alternatives. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Original upload log states "A photograph made by a person of at the writer, Mustafa Balel for use freely by the press". No evidence of licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ophelia2 as Speedy (3D work of art, not in PD) Denniss (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite a duplicate of File:Peermade greenery.JPG. A watermark was croppet out there Robot Monk (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ich bitte aus persönlichen Gründen um die Löschung meiner ("Die Syco") Bilder zum "Chateau St.Sauveur de Cruzieres". Die Syco (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ich bitte aus persönlichen Gründen um die Löschung meiner ("Die Syco") Bilder zum "Chateau St.Sauveur de Cruzieres". Die Syco (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ich bitte aus persönlichen Gründen um die Löschung meiner ("Die Syco") Bilder zum "Chateau St.Sauveur de Cruzieres". Die Syco (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ich bitte aus persönlichen Gründen um die Löschung meiner ("Die Syco") Bilder zum "Chateau St.Sauveur de Cruzieres". Die Syco (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ich bitte aus persönlichen Gründen um die Löschung meiner ("Die Syco") Bilder zum "Chateau St.Sauveur de Cruzieres". Die Syco (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
just want to remove Dheeraj mtech (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.167.13 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
pour cause de retouches infographiques -- Cafedelyon 15:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative - no FoP in US Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As a british work this is not public domain 50 years from creation. Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
je souhaite le remplacer Ancestorbook (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete all my files, contributions and account Famiglia Piaggio (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering COM:CB#Product packaging and some related DR-discussions the package contains (croppable) non-trivial design art with unknown copyright issues from toy company en:Mego Corporation (early 1950s to 1982, bankruptcy, now known as Abrams Gentile Entertainment LLC.). Design art apparently based on tools and characters used in en:Star Trek: The Original Series (TV series 1966 to 1969). Gunnex (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Source file from the English Wikipedia: click me. Nominated for deletion because uploader does not have evidence of permission or a strong assertion of ownership. His file description seems to imply that he got it from another source. Looking at the uploader's file upload history will also show that a number of his uploads have been copied from websites across the web. See file listing here. Xeltran (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Very doubtful licensing - the author is unknown but there is no valid evidence for this license High Contrast (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Publicity Marquitox54 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Complicated enough to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
probably non-free logo, though modified a bit Darkweasel94 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
probably non-free logo, though modified a bit Darkweasel94 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
weil ich sie nicht schön finde. Meine Schwester(5) findet das bild und auch die gesamte webseite nicht schön 10:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Ich bin ein VOL und ich hasse die webseite wikimedia commons. ich schreibe übrigens von einem öffentlichen gastgeber pc
Deleted, nonsense file. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Serbia.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Serbia.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Serbia.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, newspaper scan? Funfood ␌ 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No evidence given for the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license 88.64.113.165 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia or in USSR successors. This particularly sculpture was created after 1945 88.64.113.165 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Background map not free Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 20:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If not deleted, this file needs proper OTSR from original author (Ad Boer) and proper identification of Ad Boer as the author, rather than the uploader. Original file is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/80578981@N00/3832455183. Dutch comment reads that uploader has email permission from real author. I don't think this is enough. Whaledad (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bad Image by accident. Caliban (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image is the exact same as the one sold on this webpage: [2]. The description on the website says: "INSTANTLY DOWNLOAD the Nevin Family Crest / Nevin Coat of Arms High Quality 300 dpi JPG file. Download it and use it freely to print for your own personal use". Note the title of the uploaded file and the title of on the webpage: "Nevin Family Crest Nevin Coat of Arms Digital Download".
The user who uploaded this is almost certainly a sock of User:Notredamewc and User:Iloveyougainsbourg. Every file these users have uploaded have been a copyvios inserted into either Nevin (surname) or an article about someone with the surname. It's not a coincidence that a Nevin coat of arms uploaded by Notredamewc was deleted only a couple days ago (it was a copyvio from the same website).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Fairly obvious "bucket shop" production, therefore likely to have serious accuracy problems, in addition to the obvious copyright problems... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
orphaned picture, not in use. Wykymania (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Those aren't reasons to delete a free image. However, there are copyrighted stickers all over this thing, and I'm concerned that they aren't de minims.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 5.jpg
[edit]Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- This, and the others, may find a better home at wikisource:. It would fall within our scope, except that it is text-only. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no evidence they've been published in some peer-reviewed manner, and thus are not in scope for wikisource. Perhaps Wikibooks would take them, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikibooks to judge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by EntertainmentLawyerTormey. I'm guessing that Motopark is just grabbing the remaining text-only files and nominating here? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if they were one DR, instead of many, especially since all the discussion is going on here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, superceeded by others as this or that. Unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete However, also File:色氨酸.JPG is of bad quality and should get deleted. --Leyo 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This user has uploaded many dubious images in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Minglex FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not notify the upload bot mantainer in these cases, as he has no responsibility in what is uploaded with his tools. --Elitre (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of Disney Scrooge McDuck character . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Discussed at COM:VPC#3D walt disney character. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)- Delete Per Jim's comments at VPC. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Cup has date 1923, description has date 1932, but which ever is correct refers to creation, not date of author death. Netherlands is pma +70 - no reason to believe author died before 1941 Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Date corrected. No need for deletion, picture by me of a 3D subject. Elly (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read COM:DW; you do not have rights to the design on the cup and cannot license on the author's behalf. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense license - no reason a photo of a dutch painter in a dutch museum would be a US work. Netherlands is pma +70; copyright status based on author death, not creation - who is the author, when did s/he die? Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- YES, i made mistakes. no reason for deletion. please help and correct. thanks. Elly (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Source has no author, country, or publication information. "Before 1930" is not sufficient if relevant jurisdiction is pma. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:PRP. FWIW, source website says "Copyright © 2007 The Ecumenical Patriarchate.com". Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of the picture died in 1930. Elly (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Subject lifetime is irrelevant. Date of author death is germane. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get at least a hint why the author would have died before 1942. Constantine looks rather old in the picture (grey, almost white, beard) and was born 1860. --129.125.102.126 20:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Not needed anymore: SVG under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einsteinkoeffizienten.svg 92.203.77.170 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 17:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission for shown symbol. Krd 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. This is not De-Minimis. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Aus meiner Sicht keine Schöpfungshöhe. --Mogelzahn (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ich bitte aber darum de:Benutzer:Rabe19 als Urheber des Bildes auf der de:wp zu informieren. Ich war nur der Bote, der das Bild "umgetopft" hat. --Mogelzahn (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It's not too simple for copyright to apply, either, which is what I think Mogelzahn was saying. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Es ist nicht zu einfach für das Urheberrecht zu bewerben, sei es, das ist, was ich denke, Mogelzahn sagte. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)) Trans. by Google Translate.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this photo needs to be deleted for the reasons laid out in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert kahn.jpg. Almost certainly PD in the US, but not France. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK delete --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Two separate rationales for deletion, both sufficient reasons for deletion:
- Presence of watermark in bottom right make claims of "own work" not credible
- Photo of jewelry is an impermissible derivative work; uploader has supplied no evidence of PD-status of the jewelry, nor would the fraternity have released it into a free license.
GrapedApe (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, claim of "own work" or "PD" for either point is not credible without evidence. Note that if this is deleted, en:File:Phi Kappa Psi pledge pin.png should be re-added to en:Phi Kappa Psi. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This 3D image is from the now defunct Archaeowiki web site where all the content was licensed with an 'NC' restriction as I noted in this DR. Admin AFBorchert also confirms the license had an 'NC' restriction. And anyway, there are other replacement images on Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The object is 3D and http://web.archive.org/web/20110624060019/http://www.archaeowiki.org/Main_Page says "Content is available under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike". - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, vertrauten in den Fotografen haben und in meinen Augen ein Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: may use {{Personality rights}} or {{public}} PierreSelim (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep ich glaube schon, das Ralf weiß was er tut und ich bitte doch drum, erst mal nachzudenken und nachzulesen. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Kersti (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: may use {{Personality rights}} or {{public}} PierreSelim (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, vertrauten in den Fotografen haben und in meinen Augen ein Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: may use {{Personality rights}} or {{public}} PierreSelim (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, vertrauten in den Fotografen haben und in meinen Augen Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: may use {{Personality rights}} or {{public}} PierreSelim (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep personally motivated revenge-deletion request; given reason is nonsense --Stepro (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Antragsteller sollte sich erst mal das Regelwert durchlesen, in meinen Augen Anfängerfehler. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: may use {{Personality rights}} or {{public}} PierreSelim (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The file is intended to show a listed building (called monument in the Netherlands). But as it was under reconstruction, nothing of the building can be seen in the picture, just workers' sheds. The picture therefore has no educational or encyclopedic value. Loranchet (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs documents the reconstruction of the document. The banner visible in the picture gives a description of what is goin on. A new version is File:Leidschendam - Sluisplein 1 - Rijksmonument 25722.jpg. Dedalus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The object of this image is a listed building. But it is completely invisible due to renovation screens and sheds. It therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Currently the renovation is finished. Uploader can be requested to submit a new image. Loranchet (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy kept. No new arguments for deletion. The image is in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I know that there is a previous DR on this, but that one didn't discuss the derivative work that's an issue I think in this picture Vera (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see your point and I am normally tough on such things, but given the steep angle and the poor reproduction of the sign, I would be inclined to say that the DW issue is de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Funfood as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On website: Photo credit to L. Brian Stauffer. I had already deleted the file and there was a request by Bensin.Hystrix (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Keep Yeah, it's on the website. But the website itself is licensed as "Creative Commons" in the footer - and links to CC-BY-3.0-US, an acceptable Commons license. I've added the license tag to the image. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)I changed the existing unported version to US version, per the page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the photo credit. This is a photo of professor at a university domain with assertion of free license. That a person other than the subject took the photo is to be expected, but since there's no watermark here, shouldn't we assume work-for-hire and that the release is valid? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Below the photograph on the website L. Brian Stauffer is credited as the photographer. So I suggest to fill author field with his name and everything should be allright then.--Funfood ␌ 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If a web page does not specify exactly what is licensed under a Creative commons license I think it is fair to assume that the license covers all media offered on the page where the license is mentioned. --Bensin (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it is not quite as simple as Philosopher suggests because the page it is linked states and links to a Creative Commons free licence but the page also says: "All right reserved". The question is: which is the correct licence? We don't know. Where there is any doubt, as in this case, we must err on the side of caution because we cannot determine the intention of the copyright holder from those pages. Besides which, the image page does not clearly give a free licence either. And for Bensin we cannot assume anything by what is not stated, we can only go by what it specifically stated and in this case that is unclear. Delete. Ww2censor (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's on other web pages as it is here on Commons: You may publish your work under as many licenses as you please. "All right reserved" does not mean you cannot also license the work under any CC-license you choose. Also, why should the image page say anything about a license if it has already been stated? --Bensin (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing applies in this case when they are using the most highly restrictive licence "all right reserved" and there is also a CC licence that is less restrictive, it has to be one or the other it can't be both. They may of course, as suggested be able to use two CC-licences one freer then the other. I still doubt the validity of this image's copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to apply a Commons-policy to an external page. I was merely making a comparison. "All right reserved" not being an actual license aside, if you license your material under two different licenses, one will, in most cases, be less restrictive than the other. And that is totally alright! If it's your work you can license it however you want. The page in this case clearly says "Licensed under Creative Commons". I see no reason to second-guess that. --Bensin (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing applies in this case when they are using the most highly restrictive licence "all right reserved" and there is also a CC licence that is less restrictive, it has to be one or the other it can't be both. They may of course, as suggested be able to use two CC-licences one freer then the other. I still doubt the validity of this image's copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question for Ww2censor - When we see "©" it's saying "Hey, this is copyrighted, you can't use it!" But then we see the "Creative Commons", which says " ... except if you follow these rules." When you add an "All rights reserved," how does this change things? You still have the "Creative Commons" saying " ... except if you follow these rules." --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see or get how an image can be highly restrictively licenced under "All right reserved" and also freely licenced, but is you say so, OK. To me it is one of the other not both. Ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible for the same reasons that we allow more than one license per work here on Commons. --Bensin (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see or get how an image can be highly restrictively licenced under "All right reserved" and also freely licenced, but is you say so, OK. To me it is one of the other not both. Ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's on other web pages as it is here on Commons: You may publish your work under as many licenses as you please. "All right reserved" does not mean you cannot also license the work under any CC-license you choose. Also, why should the image page say anything about a license if it has already been stated? --Bensin (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The declaration is on the webpage belonging to Ed Diener; while the image belongs to "L. Brian Stauffer". The release doesn't appear to apply to this specific image.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The name Micaela Chan at the bottom of the page just increases the confusion. But Ed Diener nor Micaela Chan are the copyright holders of the image. Lymantria (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright status unclear Lymantria (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) - reinstated 11:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment What does this image show? Perhaps it is in scope, but the description should be better than "Pressetermin Olympiamannschaft in Kienbaum". I don't see any members of the press there, BTW. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Das ist der Eingang um die Fotos zu machen. Also eine Wegbeschreibung. Könnte ja sein. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The banner is shown with incorrect ratio, and a corrected version is now available at File:Banner of the King of Scots.svg. To help avoid confusion and the use of the wrong banner, this file should be deleted. Bellae artes (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Disagree And so does Lord Lyon - http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/237.html I would have thought that he should be the final arbiter.- You will notice that he does not specify a ratio. Furthermore, I think that the name "Banner of the king of Scots" is a bit of a misnomer and not accurate as the Queen uses it as well. Kiltpin (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should refrain from such ludicrous delusions as the Lord Lyon agreeing with you, as if you spoke to him on the issue. And you linked a site with no information about the topic at hand, I am not sure how nothing proves you are correct.
Had you done more research, you would find the Lord Lyon describes two sizes for banners. A 5:4 ratio for banners to fly over a house (the ratio in File:Banner of the King of Scots.svg), and a personal banner 1.5 metres squared to be carried with the Sovereign (I find it excessive to create an image 1.5 metres squared to conform to this guideline). Your image conforms to neither of these guidelines, per the Lord Lyon King of Arms. Bellae artes (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Painting is PD per pma +70, but frame is a separate work with no copyright information - see Commons:DW#Casebook. Frame is 3D, so Bridgeman does not apply. Painting could perhaps be cropped out, but is of poor technical quality (slight focus issue, noise, etc.) - discussion is needed. Эlcobbola talk 14:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Rommert Casimir door Isaac Israels.jpg - same issue. Frames must be cropped to be retained.
- Of course I know the picture is not perfect or even bad. But it is a key work of Leo van Gestel, it is not often shown in a location were it is permitted to take a photograph. Yesterday it was in a museum were I was allowed to take pictures. So please retain untill a better version is available. You can crop the frame, but that seems rediculous to me. I saw other pictures with frames. Elly (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The pictures I have made myself. The copyright of the picture of the frames is given by me in PD or CC, whathever you like. The upload form has no space for adding these special issues. Because I made the pictures, the frames are thus not copyrighted according to this "casebook". Elly (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read COM:DW - the frames are copyrightable works and not yours to license. Эlcobbola talk 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The pictures I have made myself. The copyright of the picture of the frames is given by me in PD or CC, whathever you like. The upload form has no space for adding these special issues. Because I made the pictures, the frames are thus not copyrighted according to this "casebook". Elly (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't delete - at most the frame should be cropped. (However, at a guess the frame looks about as old as the picture, so some investigation would probably show that it's PD too.) --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep but - maybe - crop. There are two issues at hand which shouldn't be confused: In most cases where Bridgeman is invoked here, it's about photos of artworks taken from a third source by the uploader - who isn't the photographer. As it's assumed that photos of 3D objects are copyrightable as works of photography, we delete or crop such photos where a frame is shown, even if the frame itself is very simple and only of a functional kind. So, in these cases it's firstly about the copyright of the photographer, not a possible frame designer's copyright. That's what "Paintings with frames" at Commons:DW#Casebook is about. On the other hand, if the uploader is the photographer, they own the copyright of the photograph, if there is any. Well, in the case discussed here, we have a photograph taken by the uploader, as I think we have no reason to doubt her assertion. This leaves the second issue: Is the frame itself a) copyrightable and if yes, is it b) still copyrighted? We have here a quite ornate frame, so it's probably copyrightable, I'd say (e.g. a simple wooden frame wouldn't be). It looks rather old but a more recent "old-fashioned" creation would be a possibility. So, to be on the safe side, I suggest cropping. It's the only photo of this painting we have at Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crop the frames... FASTILY (TALK) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Renamed from: File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg
These arms are incorrect, accoording to the Vatican's own website. The emblem of the Holy See is crossed keys surmounted by a tiara, but is not borne upon a shield as a true coat of arms is (the Vatican sight erronously refers to it as a coat of arms still), and the colours of the keys are not reversed. An earlier emblem of the Holy See only used only the crossed keys with no tiara, but again not upon a red shield. This file is quite similar to File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg, and has caused confusion in the past and should be deleted to avoid confusion in the future. Bellae artes (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it was superseded by image:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg --F l a n k e r (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, the only difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City is which side the gold and silver keys are on. We have four files, two for each entity, one with a shield and one without. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true. Please read the link to the Vatican's website more closely, the emblem of the Holy See has the keys in the same position as appears on the arms of the Vatican City. The only differnce is that the Holy See seems not to have arms, as the emblem appears without a shield. Bellae artes (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or, if the two devices shown can be usedinterchangably, then the arms of the Holy See are the arms of Vatican City. Bellae artes (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There are two different coats, with the keys reversed "When what is represented is the Holy See, not Vatican City State, the keys are reversed. Rather, when the state was set up in 1929, the keys in the arms of the Holy See, with the gold one in dexter position, were reversed to provide a distinctive symbol for the new entity."[4]. And, yes, we need better sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Vatican seems to disagree with your statement, see the official source I provided in the openng paragraph. You are quoting information from an old Wikipedia article which presented this "reverse colours" myth, but that article had no citation or source for that myth. Bellae artes (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If the Vatican Press Office is correct (I don't see any reason to doubt them), then the only difference is that the Holy See uses the keys emblem by itself, while the Vatican City uses the keys emblem on a red shield. For that reason, this file should be kept, and have the red shield removed. File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg should also remain, with the red shield. Any and all other SVG duplicate files should be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 20:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, in the form it had before Bellae artes altered it on 10 August 2012. This discussion began when the coat of arms shown was that of the Holy See, as the initial comments by Fry1989 and Enric Naval show. On 10 August Bellae artes unilaterally and without discussion altered the file to make it a duplicate of File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. In the arms of Vatican City (as indicated in the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State) the silver key is in bend and the gold in bend sinister, while in the coat of arms of the Holy See it is normally the gold key that is in bend and the silver key in bend sinister. "The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister, although the relative positions are sometimes reversed" (Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons 1930), vol. I, p. 12; and Donald Lindsay Galbreath, Geoffrey Briggs, Papal Heraldry ("Heraldry Today" 1972), p. 12). Without any hint that in the arms of the Holy See the keys are ever, even if only rarely, reversed and thus made identical with those of Vatican City, "the Heraldry Society (Coat of Arms, 1966) wrote in a response to an enquiry: 'Papal Arms. With reference to the arms of the Holy See, one authority gives the blazon as follows: Gules a key or in bend above a key argent in bend sinister, both wards upwards, the bows united by a cord or, above the shield a tiara, its three crowns or, the mitre argent'" (reported here). "When the state was set up in 1929, the keys in the arms of the Holy See, with the gold one in dexter position, were reversed to provide a distinctive symbol for the new entity. In the personal arms of the popes, the keys are, of course, arranged as in the arms of the Holy See: the other arrangement would be equivalent to treating him as merely the head of that little state" (Flags of the World, Vatican City). The two juridical entities (Holy See and Vatican City) are distinct, the two coats of arms are distinct, and there is need of a distinct file to represent each of the two distinct coats of arms. Esoglou (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the gold key is alwais in bend sinister (see the Holy See Coat of Arms form the official web site, or Fundamental law of the State of Vatican City 26 Nov. 2000, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Supplement, 01 Feb. 2001, Attachment B). --F l a n k e r (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the gold key is always in bend sinister in the arms of Vatican City State (see Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano from the official web site). The Fundamental Law in question is that of the state, not of the Holy See, and it does unquestionably present the gold key in bend sinister in the arms of the state. The web pages on the "official website" are subject to interpretation. The authorities on heraldry that I have quoted above require no interpretation or original research synthesis: they state explicitly that in the Holy See's arms (unlike those of the state) the gold key is, at least normally, in bend, not in bend sinister. Esoglou (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Vatican Press Office shows the gold key sinister ONLY on the papal coats of arms, but for the Holy See and the Vatican it shows them both dexter, so Flanker's wrong about his link. This has to be figured out before anything is deleted. If someone has the actual law text for the Holy See and the Vatican City to compare, then we can see what the actual laws are, but right now, the Vatican Press Office is a pretty compelling source and it says the the silver key is the one sinister on both arms, with the shield being the only difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City. Fry1989 eh? 19:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which Vatican Press Office release do you mean? This one, which has two images under the heading "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", or this one, which has the same two images under the heading "Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" (Emblem of the Holy See and Coat of Arms of Vatican City State)? As I said above, the two divergent Vatican Press Office releases require interpretation, but no interpretation is required for what the cited reliable sources explicitly say about the coat of arms of the Holy See. There is no law about the coat of arms of the Holy See: it is just a matter of centuries-old traditional practice. There is, as you know, a specific law about the coat of arms of Vatican City State, a law originally enacted in the same year as the state was created. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I mean both links. They both show the the one without the shield and the one with the shield as having the silver key sinister. They both also say in their texts (one English, the other in Italian) that the silver key is sinister. So if that's right, then the only difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City is that one has the keys emblem on a red shield, the other without. I'm just going by what the two links say, if someone has an actual copy of the law text from either entity stating the gold key is sinister, then clearly there's a problem between what the law is and what the Vatican Press Office thinks the law is, but right now, our sources say both entities have the silver key sinister. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be clearer to use the terms "in bend" and "in bend sinister": I have difficulty in understanding what you mean by "sinister", since you seem to mean by it what is meant by "dexter" in the Flags of the World site. According to the press release in Italian, the coat of arms illustrated is only that of Vatican City State. No coat of arms, but only an emblem, is shown for the Holy See. When I first saw this I concluded, as did two other private websites, that the Holy See has no coat of arms but only an emblem (that is precisely what the two websites explicitly said). The Holy See's website www.vatican.va only shows the symbol, while that of Vatican City State (http://www.vaticanstate.va/IT/homepage.htm) shows the state's coat of arms. But other editors came up with the quite persuasive secondary sources that say the Holy See does have a coat of arms and that in the Holy See's coat of arms the gold key is in bend, not bend sinister, the opposite of the arrangement in the undoubted coat of arms of Vatican City State. It was certainly wrong to alter the Holy See's coat of arms (I don't mean its emblem) here on Commons from the form in which it corresponded to those reliable technical sources to make it identical with the coat of arms of Vatican City State. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sinister means to the left, dexter means to the right. Both of the links we have (which are essentially the same thing except one being in English and the other in Italian) say in their text and show in their illustrations that the keys symbol has the silver one to the viewers left for both the Holy See and the Vatican City. This source also shows the arms with the silver key on the left. Now unless we have any other official source to the contrary, then Bellae artes is actually right, except for one point: The Holy See uses the keys symbol alone, while the Vatican City uses the keys symbol with a red shield behind it. If that's so, this file needs to be kept and have the red shield removed, and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg needs to be kept with it's red shield, and any other SVG dupes can be deleted. Do we have any official sources that say the contrary??? Fry1989 eh? 23:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- In heraldry, sinister means to the left of the holder of the shield, to the right of the viewer; dexter means to the right of the holder of the shield, to the left of the viewer. The one coat of arms illustrated in the Holy See Press Office releases has the silver key or, to be exact, its ward, in the dexter position (dexter chief, to be more exact), not the sinister. The other illustration in those releases is not of a coat of arms, an escutcheon, but of a symbol, an emblem, a logo, and for that reason it cannot properly be spoken of as having either a dexter or a sinister nor of having either a bend or a bend sinister. If a coat of arms of the Holy See exists and not merely an emblem, a symbol, it has an escutcheon. To see more clearly the distinction between a mere emblem and a coat of arms, it may be helpful to view Emblem of Italy or this site. Your proposal, as well as miscalling the symbol a coat of arms, would duplicate the file of the symbol that is already on Commons and that Bellae artes has altered too.
- Among the differences between the Italian and the English press releases is this: according to the heading that one of them gives, its illustrated coat of arms is of Vatican City State and the emblem it gives is of the Holy See, while the other speaks of a coat of arms of the Holy See and of the state and says nothing whatever of the illustrated emblem, neither calling it an emblem of Vatican City State nor an emblem of the Holy See. Thus any conclusion about what the Press Office means would be a matter of original-research interpretation. In particular, the Press Office does not say that there is no such thing as a coat of arms of the Holy See. In fact, to quote Bellae artes himself on another Wikipedia discussion page, "Page 337 at this source, in the third row far right we have the 'scudo della Santa Sede nel XV secolo', or 'shield of the Holy See in the 15th century', which shows a pair of crossed keeys and papal tiara." So from at least as far back as the 15th century the Holy See has had not merely a logo or emblem but a genuine coat of arms, an escutcheon.
- The Holy See's coat of arms is described in reliable secondary sources that are not contradicted by any clear primary source as having a red field with two keys in saltire, of which it is the gold (or) key that is in bend (from dexter chief to sinister base). That is the coat of arms depicted in the image that, under the name of "Coat of arms of the Holy See", Flanker, as the copyright holder, released into the public domain on 12 December 2007. But two days ago Bellae artes removed Flanker's work and replaced it with a design of his own, identical with File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. The replacement and creation of a duplicate was done without even seeking consensus. The file should immediately return to showing Flanker's work, which corresponded to the description in reliable sources of the coat of arms of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sinister means to the left, dexter means to the right. Both of the links we have (which are essentially the same thing except one being in English and the other in Italian) say in their text and show in their illustrations that the keys symbol has the silver one to the viewers left for both the Holy See and the Vatican City. This source also shows the arms with the silver key on the left. Now unless we have any other official source to the contrary, then Bellae artes is actually right, except for one point: The Holy See uses the keys symbol alone, while the Vatican City uses the keys symbol with a red shield behind it. If that's so, this file needs to be kept and have the red shield removed, and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg needs to be kept with it's red shield, and any other SVG dupes can be deleted. Do we have any official sources that say the contrary??? Fry1989 eh? 23:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be clearer to use the terms "in bend" and "in bend sinister": I have difficulty in understanding what you mean by "sinister", since you seem to mean by it what is meant by "dexter" in the Flags of the World site. According to the press release in Italian, the coat of arms illustrated is only that of Vatican City State. No coat of arms, but only an emblem, is shown for the Holy See. When I first saw this I concluded, as did two other private websites, that the Holy See has no coat of arms but only an emblem (that is precisely what the two websites explicitly said). The Holy See's website www.vatican.va only shows the symbol, while that of Vatican City State (http://www.vaticanstate.va/IT/homepage.htm) shows the state's coat of arms. But other editors came up with the quite persuasive secondary sources that say the Holy See does have a coat of arms and that in the Holy See's coat of arms the gold key is in bend, not bend sinister, the opposite of the arrangement in the undoubted coat of arms of Vatican City State. It was certainly wrong to alter the Holy See's coat of arms (I don't mean its emblem) here on Commons from the form in which it corresponded to those reliable technical sources to make it identical with the coat of arms of Vatican City State. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I mean both links. They both show the the one without the shield and the one with the shield as having the silver key sinister. They both also say in their texts (one English, the other in Italian) that the silver key is sinister. So if that's right, then the only difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City is that one has the keys emblem on a red shield, the other without. I'm just going by what the two links say, if someone has an actual copy of the law text from either entity stating the gold key is sinister, then clearly there's a problem between what the law is and what the Vatican Press Office thinks the law is, but right now, our sources say both entities have the silver key sinister. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which Vatican Press Office release do you mean? This one, which has two images under the heading "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", or this one, which has the same two images under the heading "Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" (Emblem of the Holy See and Coat of Arms of Vatican City State)? As I said above, the two divergent Vatican Press Office releases require interpretation, but no interpretation is required for what the cited reliable sources explicitly say about the coat of arms of the Holy See. There is no law about the coat of arms of the Holy See: it is just a matter of centuries-old traditional practice. There is, as you know, a specific law about the coat of arms of Vatican City State, a law originally enacted in the same year as the state was created. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus christ I'm gonna have to draw you a diagram cause you just don't get what I'm saying. I have always been speaking from the viewer's point of view, not the holder. According to the Vatican Press Office's website, in both it's English Version and it's Italian Version, the Holy See AND the Vatican both have the silver key bending to the viewer's left, with the only two differences between the two entities being the use of a red shield, and the way the ropes are on the handles of the keys. If that's the case, then the following is what they are saying:
-
Coat of arms of the Holy See -
Coat of arms of the Vatican City
.svg)
.svg){kind=link}
![69 File:Скульптура "Прием в пионеры".jpg](#File:Скульптура_"Прием_в_пионеры".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/29#c-88.64.113.165-2012-07-29T20:13:00.000Z-File:Скульптура_"Прием_в_пионеры".jpg){kind=link}
![00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/29#c-Fastily-2012-08-05T00:17:00.000Z-File:Скульптура_"Прием_в_пионеры".jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=338019430#File:Jubileum_Wilhelmina_1923.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_TEY_Ware,_Tell_el-Yehudiyeh_(UCL_13477).jpg){kind=link}
- Do you get it now??? And I don't care if there's a thousand secondary sources, an official source trumps that every time. Unless we have ANY other official sources which contradict the Vatican Press Office at this time, I move that this DR be closed with File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg (this file) kept and it's red shield removed, File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg should also stay, with it's red shield. Those are the only two SVGs that should stay, any other SVG duplicates should be deleted. I won't respond to any more nonsense that draws this discussion out longer and longer than needs be. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, how can be "wrong" my link, since is an official link of the Vatican? I think they know how they emblems are... Apart from that, you're unquestionably right. The gold key is in right position for both emblems. --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fry 1989, have you got the distinction between a coat of arms and a logo? Have you looked up the information cited above about the distinction, including the information that Italy has an emblem, a logo, but no coat of arms, although it did have coats of arms in the past? The diagram that you have labelled "Holy See" is of an emblem or logo, not of a coat of arms; the file we are discussing is labelled "Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg", not "Emblem of the Holy See.svg". There is no official Vatican or Holy See source that says the emblem in question is the Holy See's coat of arms. How could there be? In questions of heraldry, heraldic terms such as "coat of arms" (and "sinister") have a precise meaning. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- "There is no official Vatican or Holy See source that says the emblem in question is the Holy See's coat of arms. How could there be?" No??? Then what do you call THIS? It very clearly and undeniably says "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". If you can't even read our links, then you shouldn't be commenting here. It's time for a decision and a close. No more useless discussion denying official sources. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bellae artes interpreted this as meaning the single coat of arms illustrated belongs to both the Holy See and the Vatican City State. You interpret it as meaning that the emblem shown is the coat of arms of the Holy See. You can't both be right. Is it perhaps even possible that you just might both be wrong? At any rate, the disagreement shows that there is need of interpretation. And, since you admit you are not an heraldic expert, why don't you just find the little time needed to read the cited information about the distinction between a logo and a coat of arms, with special reference to Italy? Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have already had this discussion with other users who think a non-heraldic emblme is a "seal", even if it's government calls it a coat of arms. While that is technically correct, if a government calls their symbol a "coat of arms", we have to as well, Mali is an example of this. Now, the Vatican Press Office explicitly refers to the symbols of the Holy see and of the Vatican City as "coat of arms", so whether you think it's a coat of arms or a logo or whatever else don't matter. Now, the Vatican Press Office explicitly says "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", , and it shows two separate images with differences. Because of that, they are reffering to two seperate symbols, one for the Holy See and one for the Vatican. So my interpretation is perfectly correct. Unless you have another official source (not secondary sources) to the contrary, stop dragging this on, because you're wasting everyone's time. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Holy See Press Office in English says, according to Bellae artes, that the coat of arms, not the emblem, illustrated is the coat of arms of the Holy See. The Holy See Press Office in Italian (do you think this is somehow non-official?) says, quite explicitly, that the emblem is the "emblem" (not the coat of arms) of the Holy See. Where did you get the idea that the Holy See Press Office has officially said the emblem is a coat of arms? Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because THEY SAY SO on the damn English version of their website! Can you not read it, are you deliberately overlooking it, or are you just trying to say there's a translation error between the Italian and English versions of their website? Either way, this silly childish argument between terms like "coat of arms" and "emblem" and "Seal" is just semantic nonsense, it has no bearing on this discussion. Both the Italian and English website say that the symbol (since a neutral term is clearly gonna be necessary here for you purists) of both the Holy See and the Vatican City have the silver key bending to the viewers' left, with the only difference being the red shield and the ropes. You haven't provided a single official source to the contrary so all your whining here means nothing. For that reason, my proposal for a close is correct and should be done. Fry1989 eh? 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neither on the damn English version nor on the damn Italian version do they say that the symbol illustrated is a coat of arms. Bellae artes has maintained that, in talking about the "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" (singular, not "Coats of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City"), the damn English version is saying that the single coat of arms illustrated belongs to both the see and the state. Who decides that that interpretation is wrong and yours the only right interpretation of the damn English version? In spite of your claim above that both the Italian and the English versions have made an official statement about the coat of arms of the Holy See, the damn Italian version, in talking about "Emblem of the Holy See and Coat of Arms of Vatican City State", is quite obviously not saying anything about the Holy See's coat of arms, not even that it has (or has not) a coat of arms. Just as obviously, the Press Office here distinguishes between "emblem" and "coat of arms". Your attempt to prove that the symbol/emblem/logo illustrated on the damn English and the damn Italian versions of the Press Office release is the coat of arms of the Holy See has failed, and you surely don't need reminding that the file whose proposed deletion we are discussing is "Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg". Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because THEY SAY SO on the damn English version of their website! Can you not read it, are you deliberately overlooking it, or are you just trying to say there's a translation error between the Italian and English versions of their website? Either way, this silly childish argument between terms like "coat of arms" and "emblem" and "Seal" is just semantic nonsense, it has no bearing on this discussion. Both the Italian and English website say that the symbol (since a neutral term is clearly gonna be necessary here for you purists) of both the Holy See and the Vatican City have the silver key bending to the viewers' left, with the only difference being the red shield and the ropes. You haven't provided a single official source to the contrary so all your whining here means nothing. For that reason, my proposal for a close is correct and should be done. Fry1989 eh? 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Holy See Press Office in English says, according to Bellae artes, that the coat of arms, not the emblem, illustrated is the coat of arms of the Holy See. The Holy See Press Office in Italian (do you think this is somehow non-official?) says, quite explicitly, that the emblem is the "emblem" (not the coat of arms) of the Holy See. Where did you get the idea that the Holy See Press Office has officially said the emblem is a coat of arms? Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have already had this discussion with other users who think a non-heraldic emblme is a "seal", even if it's government calls it a coat of arms. While that is technically correct, if a government calls their symbol a "coat of arms", we have to as well, Mali is an example of this. Now, the Vatican Press Office explicitly refers to the symbols of the Holy see and of the Vatican City as "coat of arms", so whether you think it's a coat of arms or a logo or whatever else don't matter. Now, the Vatican Press Office explicitly says "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", , and it shows two separate images with differences. Because of that, they are reffering to two seperate symbols, one for the Holy See and one for the Vatican. So my interpretation is perfectly correct. Unless you have another official source (not secondary sources) to the contrary, stop dragging this on, because you're wasting everyone's time. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bellae artes interpreted this as meaning the single coat of arms illustrated belongs to both the Holy See and the Vatican City State. You interpret it as meaning that the emblem shown is the coat of arms of the Holy See. You can't both be right. Is it perhaps even possible that you just might both be wrong? At any rate, the disagreement shows that there is need of interpretation. And, since you admit you are not an heraldic expert, why don't you just find the little time needed to read the cited information about the distinction between a logo and a coat of arms, with special reference to Italy? Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fry1989: Please use proper nomenclature if you don't want to prolong the discussion - it is common knowledge that heraldic images are seen from the holder's point of view. --Palnatoke (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what is common knowledge and isn't. I'm not a heraldic expert, and I don't have to be one to read official sources on what they say their emblem is. And considering I said the same thing 3 times, it's rather obvious what point of view I'm talking from, use your thinker and figure it out instead of grilling me to your expectations of proper terminology. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- "There is no official Vatican or Holy See source that says the emblem in question is the Holy See's coat of arms. How could there be?" No??? Then what do you call THIS? It very clearly and undeniably says "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". If you can't even read our links, then you shouldn't be commenting here. It's time for a decision and a close. No more useless discussion denying official sources. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fry 1989, have you got the distinction between a coat of arms and a logo? Have you looked up the information cited above about the distinction, including the information that Italy has an emblem, a logo, but no coat of arms, although it did have coats of arms in the past? The diagram that you have labelled "Holy See" is of an emblem or logo, not of a coat of arms; the file we are discussing is labelled "Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg", not "Emblem of the Holy See.svg". There is no official Vatican or Holy See source that says the emblem in question is the Holy See's coat of arms. How could there be? In questions of heraldry, heraldic terms such as "coat of arms" (and "sinister") have a precise meaning. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, how can be "wrong" my link, since is an official link of the Vatican? I think they know how they emblems are... Apart from that, you're unquestionably right. The gold key is in right position for both emblems. --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Expert or not, Fry is right. Period. I propose, (like he does few line above):
-
Emblem of the Holy See.svg
-
Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg
I think we have fixed the problem, don't we? --F l a n k e r (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I might be coming to this conversation a little late (like I did with the conversation the first time Bellae artes brought this issue up) but it seems clear to me that the proper Coat of Arms, per the primary source that has been linked, at least a dozen times in this conversation. If the Vatican and the Holy See say that their arms have keys crossed Argent dexter, or sinister, then it's not really our place to disagree. Achowat (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- What I have now been discussing with Fry1989 is not the arrangement of the keys, but whether the "emblem of the Holy See" given by the Holy See Press Office can be called the "coat of arms of the Holy See" and so replace the present image in File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg. Flanker seems to suggest that the image of the emblem of Vatican City already in Commons be used as "emblem" of the Holy See (the underlining is Flanker's), not as "coat of arms" of the Holy See, as Fry1989 called it. Perhaps Flanker will clarify whether this is his meaning.
- Of course, the question then remains: Does the Holy See have a coat of arms, as well as an emblem? Esoglou (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it's a coat of arms or a emblem or a seal or a whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with the issue of this deletion. What the thing properly is (seal, coat, emblem....) can be addressed by renaming the file appropriately. It's positively useless and unrelated to this issue to talk about properly describing this thing with it's appropriate term. And no, to address your above comment as well, I am not mistaken on 2 counts. The first being that both the Italian and the English websites show two different images, and say "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". Because they say "and of'", they are explicitly addressing the two images seperately, they don't need to pluralize "Coats", it's another way of doing it but not the only one. On the second count, what you or anybody else feels this is, really doesn't matter. Only the government the symbol represents gets to say what it is. If they say it is a "coat of arms", that's what they consider it to be, and that's what we have to call it. I've already pointed out Mali as an example, where their national symbol is clearly a seal in proper terms rather than a coat of arms, but the Government of Mali calls it a "coat of arms", and that's why we have our Commons file named Coat of arms of Mali and why our English Wikipedia article does too. The same goes for File:Coat of arms of Ohio.svg, it doesn't have a shred of heraldry to it, but Ohio's Government explicitly calls it a "coat of arms" (separate from their State Seal), and we must too. That's been the consensus here for circumstances like this, where the Government calls it one thing even though it looks like something else. So please, get over the "correct term", which really doesn't matter in this DR at all, and address the real issue, which is the following: 1: Does the Holy See and the Vatican City both use it with the silver key bending to the left as the Vatican Press Office shows, or does it not like some secondary sources claim? 2: What are the differences between the symbol as the Holy See uses it, and how the Vatican City uses it?. Those are the only two issue that matter in this DR. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you accept that the image on the left is what the Holy See calls its emblem, then we agree!
- If, in addition to its emblem, the Holy See has no coat of arms, then there is no image for "File:Coat of arms of the Holy See". "File: Emblem of the Holy See" is a possibility. Only if there is a coat of arms of the Holy See, of a description different from that of its emblem, as sources mentioned above clearly say, is there something for File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.
- If you agree, we can both be silent on the matter - after having spilled so many words by now - and leave it to others to consider whether those sources are to be ignored. Esoglou (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but per the pre-existing consensus for this, all that matters is what the symbol's armiger calls it. If Mali and Ohio call their very non-heraldic symbols a "coat of arms" so do we, and it's the same for the Holy See. That's what their website calls it and that's what matters, not whether or not any of us think it has heraldic value or is more properly an "emblem". Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Fry, do not go too far: in the Italian page the paragrph title is Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano (i.e. emblem not coat). It is clearly an emblem not a coat of arms, is obviously a small translation mistake. --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. I know in Italian they do call coats of arms "stemma" as opposed to "emblema", so it's possible. I'm simply trying to make the point that what the armiger calls their symbol is what matters, not whether any of us think they're using the proper term. Anyhow I would say that we all seem to agree and it's time for a close under my proposal, yes? Fry1989 eh? 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your proposal was "This file should be kept, and have the red shield removed." Why not add "and have the file name altered to 'Emblem of the Holy See, svg'", so as to fit "what the armiger calls their symbol" (Flanker has indicated the official nomenclature) and what "we all seem to agree" on? Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because that's not my problem, I look at the bigger issues at hand. It's your head that seems to be ready to explode if we don't get the term correct, which is really not that big of an issue as you make it out to be, and as I've pointed out before, has NOTHING to do with this DR, it's a completely separate matter anyways. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, all happy with my proposal? --F l a n k e r (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- In view of the dispute between Fry and Bellae artes on the English Wikipedia, I have raised on the appropriate noticeboard the question of the reliability of the source that both claim to be proof of their contrasting claims. Flanker's interpretation also is based on the same perhaps unreliable source.
- I have only just now noticed that Fry has not waited for consensus on his "proposal", but has instead on 12 August unilaterally altered the file, as Bellae artes likewise did unilaterally and without consensus two days before. Two actions that make nonsense of this discussion, which is supposed to be about deleting a file that, having been twice radically overwritten, no longer really exists. The file and image for discussion was not that placed by Bellae artes nor that placed by Fry1989.
- The actions of Bellae and Fry are deprecated in the proposed Commons rules on overwriting existing files. These proposed rules forbid making substantial changes (examples given are a radical crop or changes that reflect different data) and "completely unrelated files" such as "Different files on the same topic (such as a photo of a cow uploaded over another photo of a cow)" and "Different files relating to the exact same object (eg a different photo of Michelangelo's David)". They also say: "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)." For my part, I shall for a while postpone reverting.
- There is overwhelming support on Commons talk:Overwriting existing files for immediate adoption of the proposed rules. Esoglou (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Esoglou, but the source is clear and indubitable: the Vatican home page (http://www.vatican.va). I can not even imagine a more appropriate source. It is been said to you more than once and you don't have shown a minimum receipt of this thing... So, please, don't blame others of unilateral actions. --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would be good if you would present your view at the discussion about its reliability, where the observations so far are: "The conflict between the Italian and the English version of the page renders this source doubtful, even though it's official" and "If the source produces trivial and directly conflicting interpretations like this, it is hardly a reliable source, as original research is required to produce a claim of fact." Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Esoglou, but the source is clear and indubitable: the Vatican home page (http://www.vatican.va). I can not even imagine a more appropriate source. It is been said to you more than once and you don't have shown a minimum receipt of this thing... So, please, don't blame others of unilateral actions. --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, all happy with my proposal? --F l a n k e r (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because that's not my problem, I look at the bigger issues at hand. It's your head that seems to be ready to explode if we don't get the term correct, which is really not that big of an issue as you make it out to be, and as I've pointed out before, has NOTHING to do with this DR, it's a completely separate matter anyways. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your proposal was "This file should be kept, and have the red shield removed." Why not add "and have the file name altered to 'Emblem of the Holy See, svg'", so as to fit "what the armiger calls their symbol" (Flanker has indicated the official nomenclature) and what "we all seem to agree" on? Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. I know in Italian they do call coats of arms "stemma" as opposed to "emblema", so it's possible. I'm simply trying to make the point that what the armiger calls their symbol is what matters, not whether any of us think they're using the proper term. Anyhow I would say that we all seem to agree and it's time for a close under my proposal, yes? Fry1989 eh? 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Fry, do not go too far: in the Italian page the paragrph title is Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano (i.e. emblem not coat). It is clearly an emblem not a coat of arms, is obviously a small translation mistake. --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but per the pre-existing consensus for this, all that matters is what the symbol's armiger calls it. If Mali and Ohio call their very non-heraldic symbols a "coat of arms" so do we, and it's the same for the Holy See. That's what their website calls it and that's what matters, not whether or not any of us think it has heraldic value or is more properly an "emblem". Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The source is beyond obvious and clear, time for a close. It shouldn't be carried on because one person can't handle the truth in front of his own eyes. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the Noticeboard discussion on the reliability of "the source" for either your interpretation or that of Bellae artes (whom you perhaps accuse of also being unable to handle the truth in front of his own eyes), Flanker's view has met opposition from all the other editors, who I presume can use their eyes and their minds. Esoglou (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that among theVatican press releases, the Italian release is the only one that refers to an emblem and coat of arms, though that release still goes on to only discuss one coat of arms and makes no mention of the image without a shield as being the "emblema" it makes reference to in the title. As much as he would argue I and Fry are inferring too greatly, at least our inference is based on written proof as opposed to Esglou's which is based on how-he-wants-its. The other official press releases in other languages, English, Spanish, German and so forth, refer to the device as the "coat of arms of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City". The Italian is the odd-one-out here.
In the article on the English Wikipedia, there are a couple of sources that describe the coat of arms of the Holy See since the 13th century, or even earlier still, as being two white crossed keys on a red field, evolving into two whte keys and tiara and two keys, one gold and the other white, and so on and so on. So yes, the Holy See has a coat of arms, even if the website only uses a device without the shield.
Esoglou has been arguing rather oddly that the official site is wrong, though he eventually conceded it could be right tha the Holy See has arms because of so much written proof. Now his latest argument has been that the Holy See's arms are not the same as the Vatican State, that the keys are reversed in colour. This is the issue with that idea, the "emblema" of the Holy See has the gold key in bend sinister just as the arms of the Vatican State have the gold key in bend sinister. Why then, if the See's "emblema" has a golden key in bend sinister would it adopt arms with the gold key in bend?It would make more sense that the emblem is taken from the shield itself. His only quote to back up his hypothesis was a partial sentence that was in reference to the keys used to adorn papal arms; Esglou wenton to explain how the author actually meant the Holy See's coat of arms when the book referred to the papal keys adorning pope's arms and so on. Bellae artes (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- "... as being two white crossed keys on a red field, evolving into two whte keys and tiara and two keys, one gold and the other white," and into "the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister", as stated in Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930). Esoglou (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yo are talking about the keys in papal coats of arms, not on the Holy See's arms. You are quoting information about apples when we are talking about oranges; you're arguing that it is all the same because they are both fruit. That is flawed logic. Bellae artes (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, an apology for misunderstanding you in a past discussion. There you distinguished "the papal arms" (not "papal arms", as you now write) from the arms of the Holy See. I did not understand that by "the papal arms" you meant the personal arms of individual popes, as you do here by "papal coats of arms". But no, Galbreath was not talking about external ornaments added to the personal arms of popes, such as you see in the personal arms given in the English Wikipedia's en:Papal coat of arms. He was writing about a shield with a field of a particular colour with, for instance, a bend, which you know is a heraldic charge on a shield, not an external ornament: "The colours of this coat have varied a good deal. The field is almost always red, occasionally blue. At first the keys are white, then comes a time when gold keys are found, and finally the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister slowly makes its way." Esoglou (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yo are talking about the keys in papal coats of arms, not on the Holy See's arms. You are quoting information about apples when we are talking about oranges; you're arguing that it is all the same because they are both fruit. That is flawed logic. Bellae artes (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I would argue that Bellae artes and I are saying almost the exact same thing. It has been my understanding, based on the official source we have that both the Holy See and the Vatican use the keys with the silver one bending to the left and the gold one bending to the right (viewer's POV), the difference being that one has a red shield behind it and the other does not. Even if I'm wrong, and both the Holy See and the Vatican use the keys "device" with a red shield (although I haven't seen that on the websites of the Holy See and Vicarite of Rome, I'm only ever seen the red shield on the website of the Vatican), there is still a minor difference that nobody seems to notice. The Holy See used closed tied ropes, the Vatican uses loose flowing ropes. I doubt there's any heraldic way to describe the difference, it's just a matter of choice, but it is a difference I have noticed. So if the Holy See and the Vatican both use a coat of arms with the Keys device on a red shield, we would STILL need two files to show this minor difference, one for the Holy See and one for the Vatican. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you and Bellae artes agree, I am happy for you both. But Bellae artes seems to have been arguing on the basis of the Holy See Press Office documentation (dismissing the Italian text as an odd man out) for identity between the coat of arms of the Holy See and that of Vatican City State, while you seem to have been arguing on the basis of the same documentation (including the Italian text) that for the Holy See one should present something different from the coat of arms of the Vatican City State. As for variations in the form of interlacing, "conventionally, a coat of arms is described in words; this description is a blazon. There is one exact blazon, but each artist is allowed to interpret the blazon and all the various interpretations are valid armorial achievements", as Jc3s5h has said elsewhere. Sources such as Galbreath say that there is a difference even in the blazons of the arms of the Holy See and of Vatican City: one blazons the gold key in bend and the silver key in bend sinister, the other blazons the contrary. Of course, with "gules" the initial word in both blazons (the first word indicates the colour of the field), what you say represents the Holy See (which before 1929 certainly had a coat of arms, including the escutcheon - whatever do you think happened it since?) does not correspond to either. By the way, both the links you gave are to images of the "Coat of arms of the Vatican City". Esoglou (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary cut to facilitate the edits
[edit]
- First: I really don't understand why Esoglou opened another discussion on a similar topic in another place. This is a pretty boring behaviour, to say the least.
- Second: I do not understand where the problem is. It's clear that the Holy See uses an emblem (http://www.vatican.va/images/nuova_phome-2_01.jpg).
- You can also visit the official website of the Vatican State (http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Services/ for the English readers): in the upper left corner is shown the coat of arms of the Vatican City with the shield, below you will find a reference to the Holy See without the shield. Clearer than that... insist on this point is useless. Maybe, just maybe, the Holy See will also have a coat of arms, but why not ask to them (if you really can't sleep with this)? --F l a n k e r (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- If someone needs it the Attachment B is in this document, page 35. --F l a n k e r (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- First: The reason I brought the question to a broader discussion of the reliability of the single source on which you and Fry1989 on the one hand and Bellae artes on the other are basing opposing claims about the coat of arms of the Holy See is that here you and Fry on the one hand, Bellae on another, and I on yet another, are merely repeating our opinions on the question. You have now presented your argument about that "official" source at the noticeboard at which I brought the question up, and all the previously uninvolved editors there have roundly dismissed it. What is boring is your persistence in presenting here a view that Bellae artes already rejected here and that those independent editors have dismissed.
- Second: Because of your action, the Wikipedias in all languages that had a link to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg are now displaying as the coat of arms of the Holy See what is not a coat of arms at all but only an emblem! The discussion here shows that there is consensus neither for deleting the file of the image of the coat of arms of the Holy See (as Bellae artes proposed and you and Fry1989 have opposed) nor for changing the image from a coat of arms to an emblem (as you and Fry 1989 counter-proposed and Bellae artes and I have opposed). Yet each of you has unilaterally changed the image and even the name of the file. Since there is no consensus for either Bellae's overwriting with a different coat of arms nor for your overwriting with what is not a coat of arms and then renaming the file, the file should remain as it was when the discussion began.
- Thank you for the link to a reproduction of annex B of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State. It lacks the colours that I presume are in the original and that can be seen in an image elsewhere of annex A, but the hatching indicates the tinctures clearly. In the discussion on the article in the English Wikipedia on the coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City State I have already remarked on the fact that, while the website of the state displays its coat of arms (in colour), the website of the see, www.vatican.va, only displays an emblem (without indication of tinctures). That shows that the state has a coat of arms; it does not show that the see has none. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- If someone needs it the Attachment B is in this document, page 35. --F l a n k e r (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- First: as I said, the two threads essentially concern about the same topic: reliability of the Vatican website about Vatican symbology (that it is just ridiculous in terms). A link to that discussion was sufficient, and is good practice.
- Second: because of my action now the things are exactly like Vatican web site. The Holy See don't seems to have a coat of arms or, at least, the Holy See don't use it, but only an emblem. What's the matter?
- Annex B: if you are an expert of heraldry (which I highly doubt, from what you express) you should know the tinctures representation, if not, please see: en:Tincture (heraldry). --F l a n k e r (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- First and Second. The Holy See Press Office documentation is a reliable basis for your interpretation or that of Bellae artes? It can't be reliable for both. You say it's reliable for yours. Bellae artes says it's reliable for his. The neutral observers say it's reliable for neither interpretation. You say your reworking of the file makes it correspond exactly to the Vatican website (I presume you mean the Holy See website). You reverted the reworking by Bellae artes, who was convinced that his reworking made the file correspond exactly to the same website. You can't both be right. Perhaps neither of you is. (I did say, didn't I, that the tinctures were indicated clearly in the source, even if it was not in colour?) Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I speak for me, not for Bellae artes. If you read my posts, you have my opinions.
- You say (few lines above): «It lacks the colours that I presume are in the original and that can be seen in an image elsewhere of annex A».
- I respond: «The image is clearly an heraldic tincture representation, and in black and white like the original. Even a novice like me knows it». It's clear now? --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your "I respond". And of course I fully agree that you have repeatedly given me your opinion, based solely on documentation in a single source, which you must admit others interpret differently and which has been declared, at a noticeboard dedicated precisely to examining the reliability for statements in Wikipedia of the sources that editors cite for them, to be an unreliable basis for either of the contradictory statements that you and Bellae artes wish to build on it. Specialist works on papal heraldry, in particular Galbreath and Heim, clearly state that the Holy See has a coat of arms, one in which the gold key is in bend, as in File:Coat of arms of the Holy See in the form about which this discussion was initiated. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- First and Second. The Holy See Press Office documentation is a reliable basis for your interpretation or that of Bellae artes? It can't be reliable for both. You say it's reliable for yours. Bellae artes says it's reliable for his. The neutral observers say it's reliable for neither interpretation. You say your reworking of the file makes it correspond exactly to the Vatican website (I presume you mean the Holy See website). You reverted the reworking by Bellae artes, who was convinced that his reworking made the file correspond exactly to the same website. You can't both be right. Perhaps neither of you is. (I did say, didn't I, that the tinctures were indicated clearly in the source, even if it was not in colour?) Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, I did not link the same file twice. It may have the same file name, but they were two different versions, pay attention. Whether the Holy See uses it with the shield or not (all of us seem to say "not" except for you), it IS different from the Vatican's arms because of how the ropes are. One has them tied up, the other has them loose. Fry1989 eh? 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that you did not link to the same file twice. If I remember right, you linked to two distinct files concerning Vatican City State and used "Holy See" rather than "Vatican City" in the description of one of them. If my memory is wrong, I apologize. I would recommend a read of this well-sourced information on the coat of arms of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody here agrees with you, so maybe you should stop looking at secondary sources and pay more attention to the official onces we have. Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody agrees with you and Flanker in the treatment of the coat of arms of the Holy See and the discussion of the reliability for your claim and for the contradictory claim of Bellae artes of what you call "our source" and "the official ones we have". You might also find this interesting. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your defensive attitude doesn't change the fact that all three users here disagree with you in one way or another. Trying to bang us over the head isn't gonna change it either. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The place to discuss what is the coat of arms of the Holy See is where that precise question is debated. There, on the basis of many reliable sources, your thesis is rejected. The place to discuss the validity of your interpretation of the Holy See Press Office documentation is where that precise question is considered. There, on the judgement of all the neutral observers who have intervened, your thesis is rejected. You can't make your thesis true here, when it has been judged false elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- ^Projection at it's best^. You're the only one here who hasn't been able to make this thesis get across, being jaded about it doesn't make you any more right. The sources speak for themselves, the Vatican and the Holy See's arms are not the same and never will be. Fry1989 eh? 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The place to discuss what is the coat of arms of the Holy See is where that precise question is debated. There, on the basis of many reliable sources, your thesis is rejected. The place to discuss the validity of your interpretation of the Holy See Press Office documentation is where that precise question is considered. There, on the judgement of all the neutral observers who have intervened, your thesis is rejected. You can't make your thesis true here, when it has been judged false elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your defensive attitude doesn't change the fact that all three users here disagree with you in one way or another. Trying to bang us over the head isn't gonna change it either. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody agrees with you and Flanker in the treatment of the coat of arms of the Holy See and the discussion of the reliability for your claim and for the contradictory claim of Bellae artes of what you call "our source" and "the official ones we have". You might also find this interesting. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody here agrees with you, so maybe you should stop looking at secondary sources and pay more attention to the official onces we have. Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so we can close this discussion. --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. There is consensus neither for deleting the file of the image of the coat of arms of the Holy See - the original proposal by Bellae artes, which you have opposed - nor for changing the image from a coat of arms to an emblem - your counter-proposal, which Bellae artes and I have opposed, while Flanker seems to have accepted the evidence (which is indeed extremely strong) of the existence of a coat of arms of the Holy See, leaving you as the only upholder of that counter-proposal. Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- As Fry1989 stated, «You're the only one here who hasn't been able to make this thesis get across, being jaded about it doesn't make you any more right». And as I stated before, opening 3 (there is also this discussion) make confusion, at least to you: I want to close this discussion for the reason that we want to keep this image with the new title, which is the subject of this discussion. And no, I can't accept any «evidence» from you, because I have none... --F l a n k e r (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I applaud you, Flanker, for taking your arguments to the talk page of the article on the coat of arms of the Holy See, where there is plenty evidence that the Holy See does have a coat of arms. Let us see if you can get your thesis across to anybody. Here, there is no consensus for your altering and renaming the file, any more than there is for the original proposal that the file be deleted, which, according to its title "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg", is the subject of this discussion. Esoglou (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- As Fry1989 stated, «You're the only one here who hasn't been able to make this thesis get across, being jaded about it doesn't make you any more right». And as I stated before, opening 3 (there is also this discussion) make confusion, at least to you: I want to close this discussion for the reason that we want to keep this image with the new title, which is the subject of this discussion. And no, I can't accept any «evidence» from you, because I have none... --F l a n k e r (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. There is consensus neither for deleting the file of the image of the coat of arms of the Holy See - the original proposal by Bellae artes, which you have opposed - nor for changing the image from a coat of arms to an emblem - your counter-proposal, which Bellae artes and I have opposed, while Flanker seems to have accepted the evidence (which is indeed extremely strong) of the existence of a coat of arms of the Holy See, leaving you as the only upholder of that counter-proposal. Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: If incorrect rename the file or modify the description. PierreSelim (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Post-1922 paintings of Nicholas Roerich
[edit]- File:Agni Yoga.jpg
- File:Ashram 2.jpg
- File:Ashram.jpg
- File:Buddha Tester.jpg
- File:Buddha the Conqueror.jpg
- File:Egypt (Roerich).jpg
- File:Fiat Rex.jpg
- File:Himalayan view Roerich.jpg
- File:Madonna Protectoris.jpg
- File:Gesar Khan.jpg
- File:Guerrillas.jpg
- File:Guru Guri Dhar.jpg
- File:Lhasa.jpg
- File:Mother of the World.jpg
- File:N.Roerich "Gibel Atlantidy".jpg
- File:Padmasambhava (N.Roerich).jpg
- File:Pax Cultura.jpg
- File:Sacred Gift.jpg
- File:Signs of Christ.jpg
- File:Star hero.jpg
- File:Vestnik 1946.jpg
- File:Zoroaster.jpg
- File:Armageddon (N.Roerich).jpg
- File:Elias the Prophet.jpg
- File:Harrowing of hell.jpg
- File:Last Angel 1942.jpg
- File:Madonna Oriflamma.jpg
- File:Sergi.jpg
- File:St Sergius the Builder.jpg
- File:St Sophia the Almighty Wisdom.jpg
- File:St. Francis.jpg
- File:"Song of Shambhala".jpg
- File:Arjuna (Roerich).jpg
- File:Bhagavan (1931).jpg
- File:Bhagavan 1943.jpg
- File:Blagoslovennaj dusha.jpg
- File:Brahmaputra.jpg
- File:Chintamani.jpg
- File:Command of Rigden Djapo.jpg
- File:Dowry of the Chinese Princess Wen-Ching.jpg
- File:Drops of Life.jpg
- File:Empathy.jpg
- File:From Beyond.jpg
- File:Kalki Avatar.jpg
- File:Kanche.jpg
- File:Kangchenjunga (N.Roerich).jpg
- File:Lao Tse.jpg
- File:Maitreya the Conqueror 1925.jpg
- File:Maitreya the Conqueror.jpg
- File:Milarepa, the One Who Harkened.jpg
- File:Mohammed the Prophet.jpg
- File:Mount of five treasures.jpg
- File:Na visotah Tummo.jpg
- File:Nagarjuna Conqueror of the Serpent.jpg
- File:Nicholas Roerich 008.jpg
- File:Oirot messenger of the White Burkhan.jpg
- File:Path to Kailas.jpg
- File:Pearl of Searching.jpg
- File:Precept of the Teacher.jpg
- File:She who holds the World.jpg
- File:She who leads.jpg
- File:Song of Shambhala.jpg
- File:Svyatogor.jpg
- File:Tibet Himalayas.jpg
- File:Victory Gorynych the Serpent.jpg
- File:Whispers of the Desert Шёпоты пустынь.png
- File:White and Heavenly.jpg
- File:White Himalayas.jpg
- File:White Stone.jpg
- Probably parts of Category:Russian history paintings by Nicholas Roerich and Category:Scenic designs by Nicholas Roerich, too
- File:Chalice of Christ.jpg is currently under DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chalice of Christ.jpg for similar reasons. They should be closed together and alike, IMO.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Most of Roerich's works are marked PD-India. This is hard to verify for many of them, but we can generally assume that they were not first published in the US and that they were published in nations that were PD-50 or greater and a member of the Berne convention when the URAA restored copyrights in 1996; thus they were all returned to copyright by the URAA. If PD-India is correct, the URAA definitely returned them to copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about PD-India on several of these. PD-India is used on files marked 1924, despite the fact that Wikipedia seems to have him in the US at that time. There are several files in between 1924 and 1928, when Roerich was wandering 'in Roerich's own words: "started from Sikkim through Punjab, Kashmir, Ladakh, the Karakoram Mountains, Khotan, Kashgar, Qara Shar, Urumchi, Irtysh, the Altai Mountains, the Oryot region of Mongolia, the Central Gobi, Kansu, Tsaidam, and Tibet" with a detour through Siberia to Moscow in 1926'. Country of first publication of these paintings could have been anywhere in there, with life+70 Russia being a big concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- All files to be deleted should be copied to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 06:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- You do not take into account that many of these works were exhibited for the first time in the Russian Empire. See {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The right place to discuss this is Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. Yann (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Not all the images are PD-India, clearly, but they are all PD-old-50, so PD in Canada and eligible for Wikilivres. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Ariotama/logs. File:Aerowisata Logo.jpg (grabbed from Internet) borderline if {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}}{{PD-shape}}.
Gunnex (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, now are all the user's uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Final 1496653384550 origen.jpg
- File:1-es-84c525aadafcff35f808d462ac700c8b.ip 186.86.155.172.gif
- File:Girlesa adarve.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Isabel Perón
[edit]- File:Isabelita 1975.JPG
- File:Isabelita y militares.jpg
- File:Isabelita y Pinochet.jpg
- File:Isabelita, Herrera y Miguel.jpg
- File:Isabelita.jpg
- File:Perón-*-Fautario-*-Isabelita.jpg
- File:Perón Isabel y L Rega.jpeg
- File:Golpe de Estado en Argentina del 24 de marzo 1976.JPG
- File:CRuckauf1975.jpg
Similar rationale than with Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas 2. All photos that were still protected on the URAA date (1996 in Argentina) had their copyrights restored in the US. With a protection of 25 years, only the photos from 1970 or earlier are free. Isabel Perón was president of Argentina from 1974 to 1976, and most of his photos are from those years.
I noted the year next to each photo. The files in indentation are derivatives of other files listed here.
The main discussion about the files like those, free in the source country but not in the US because of the URAA restoration, was discussed here. It was decided to delete them as soon as we confirm that they are still protected. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal pictures of user, not in use anywhere and no use in future, so out of project scope.
- File:Ceo Lace pose.jpg
- File:Ceo Lace Tha Whole Thang Edition.jpg
- File:Ceo Lace Unlimited Edition.jpg
- File:Ceo Lace.jpg
- File:Ceo Lace -Sitting Down.jpg
- File:Ceo Lace - Blue and White stripe hoody.jpg
- File:BeatsOnDeckTv.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
este mapa conceptual no está bien...REvisen las ecuaciones y no concuerda las relaciones que se hacen en el mapa..