Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/11/03
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Commons licenses cannot be rewoked.
- Note to admin: Some of the nominated images by this user seem to be fine, others fail either COM:DW or COM:CRT/Romania (Romania has no FOP) --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work (based on a previous public work) anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
File:The Evangelical Lutheran church in Suceava, Suceava County, Bukovina, northeastern Romania.jpg
[edit]This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Ciprian Porumbescu Art College (former German language gymnasium) in Suceava, Romania.jpg
[edit]This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy kept - Releasing something into the public domain is irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a company logo and no permission has been given. Mondo (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: G10 - Advert. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
used for advertising on nl-wiki, no permission given, out of project cope Hoyanova (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: G10 - Advert. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi,
- The base map is not from IGN. It is from topographic-map.com: "Visualization and sharing of free topographic maps." (https://twitter.com/topographic_map?lang=fr). Elevation database: TessaDEM (licensed under the Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0). Search engine: OpenStreetMap. Alan Mattingly (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --VIGNERON (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
MOMINATED FOR MOMIFACCTED cry cry so sad.... x18 ps fuck uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu strongluy encouarged aswell ps 94 caa Timanderson999 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Test or vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Used for vandalism rencently uploaded by a English Wikipedia LTA Isla (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Adding File:Richard William Johnson E.jpg, potentially used. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Bad quality Lupe (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- better version File:Tracking Deluge and Drought through Soil Moisture- Part 1 ogv.webm uploaded in second try --Lupe (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
wrong version Yscanoglu (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
wrong version Yscanoglu (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
wrong version Yscanoglu (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I posted the same picture twice. The other one has the watermark removed as requested by wikimedia. Profar (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by INaturalistReviewBot as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6093836
The source link on this page show a Australian CC-BY license - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
Also, when you click on the image, that page is aslo licensed = https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ Ooligan (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan The photo is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0, as shown on the photo page: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6093836. The observation data is licensed CC BY 4.0, but this does not apply to the photos. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have asked the original uploader to inaturalist to change the license on the images. Gderrin (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep@AntiCompositeNumber, the link to the photo page you provided above here: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6093836 Photo 6093836, now states, "(c) Leon Perrie, some rights reserved (CC BY), uploaded by Leon Perrie" Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Gderrin, please see my new comment above about the "CC-BY" license now found at the linked webpage. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have asked the original uploader to inaturalist to change the license on the images. Gderrin (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: License changed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by INaturalistReviewBot as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6093837 Ooligan (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have asked the original uploader to inaturalist to change the license on the images. Gderrin (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Gderrin, @AntiCompositeNumber,
- Keep, the link to the photo page you provided above here: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6093837 now states, "Photo 6093837, (c) Leon Perrie, some rights reserved (CC BY), uploaded by Leon Perrie" Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Gderrin, @AntiCompositeNumber,
- I have asked the original uploader to inaturalist to change the license on the images. Gderrin (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: License changed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you really creator of that book cover? If not, this is clearly a COM:DW violation (and would be a reason for a block here, as well) PaterMcFly (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ganesh Mohan T (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 01:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
[1] copyright violation Uncitoyen (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:Krd, could you please explain why you deleted this file? How long ago was it uploaded? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:Ikan Kekek It was deleted as a copyvio COM:F1, not a COM:G7, and this should be closed as superseded. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:99F7:E55D:BEEB:A2B0 04:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 07:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Because it is totally blurry Rishipc (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of COM:EDUSE. --Achim55 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
User Upload to make a Autobiography, previously deleted article [[2]] CharlieRaMx (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Same goes for File:Nicolás Pesce Freijo.png (with one dot). Omphalographer (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom, OOS. --Achim55 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright infringement of https://www.metrobh.com.br/institucional/ and https://diariodocomercio.com.br/economia/metro-de-bh-linha-ate-o-barreiro-entrara-em-operacao-em-2028/#gref Sorocabano 32 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by D.sadzaglishvili (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: documentation and promotional images for the uploader's (tiny, non-notable) web forum.
- File:Jobscdr.jpg
- File:Europeans forum registration manual sc5.jpg
- File:Europeans forum registration manual sc4.jpg
- File:Europeans forum registration manual sc3.jpg
- File:Europeans forum registration manual sc2.jpg
- File:Europeans forum registration manual sc1.jpg
- File:Options europeans forum.jpg
- File:Forum options europeans forum.jpg
- File:Ucp europeans forum.jpg
- File:Skin selector screen europeans forum.jpg
- File:Economic mission 450x226px.jpg
- File:Economic mission 503x249px.jpg
- File:Legal mission 450x338px.jpg
- File:Social mission 450x338px.jpg
- File:Political mission 450x450px.jpg
- File:Educational mission 450x338px.jpg
- File:Our main purpose 450x338px.jpg
- File:Legal mission 550x413px.jpg
- File:Social mission 550x413px.jpg
- File:Political mission 550x550px.jpg
- File:Educational mission 550x550px.jpg
- File:Our main purpose 550x413px.jpg
- File:Europeans forum screen ru.jpg
- File:Europeans forum screen.jpg
- File:Europeans forum logo.jpg
Omphalographer (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Random nude photo, poor composition, act as exhibitionism rather than showing a nudist beach A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete mediocre dick pic Dronebogus (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I blurred the potentially copyrightable part of the picture. Syced (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Mural Commemorating Ulster Volunteers - Along Shankill Road - Belfast - Northern Ireland - UK (28731250527).jpg
[edit]No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in Russia except architecture. Komarof (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosenborg BK Fan: OK, wenn Dir das etwas bringt, dann lass die Datei löschen. Stoschmidt (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 20:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- comment Not knowledgeable about the rules on Commons, but I thought we irrevocably released our work under whatever license was suitable. He public domained it. Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I guess someone should explain the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:Deepfriedokra Both require release under a compatible license, however Commons has a time limit for author requests deletion, after which a DR is needed, while the English Wikipedia does not. In this case there would still not be a difference, because en-wiki requires those requests to be made "in good-faith". 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:99F7:E55D:BEEB:A2B0 04:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I guess someone should explain the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 20:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep unless there are copyright issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No freedom of panorama in Romania, the photo violates arcgitect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No freedom of panorama in Romania, the photo violates architect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal upload which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my personal upload anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Freedom_of_panorama. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
License laundering. The blog's description reads, "Repost celebrity photos." He/She did repost a large number of magazine covers and celebrity photos, all marked with cc-by-sa license. The photo was, in fact, initially released on the subject's Sina Weibo. 0x0a (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Germany Freedom of Panorama does only apply for permanently installed works. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. Clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per {{President.gov.ua}}, the Office of the President of Ukraine switched the license from CC-BY-4.0 to CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 on 4 October 2022, thus image published afterwards fails Common's licensing requirement.
- File:Panel discussion the war and mental health.jpg
- File:Richard Gere on The Third Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen.jpg
- File:Antony Blinken on The Third Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen.jpg
- File:The Third Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen Members.jpg
- File:Olena Zelenska on The Third Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen.jpg
- File:Yermak-McFaul International Expert Group 2.jpg
- File:Yermak-McFaul International Expert Group.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Имеется аналог в высоком разрешении - File:Russia_stamp_2002_№_775.jpg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Derechos de autor Vrasz (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:TOO Spain, the logo of Real Madrid is below the threshold of originality in Spain and cannot be copyrighted. —holly {chat} 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Real Madrid's logo is not own work WikiDasher (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This video is an exclusive report by Iran's state television (IRIB) and Fars News Agency has only re-published it, so the CC license is not applicable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope? Trade (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable person. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Banners are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, this banner is permanent. Please stop these destructive deletiuon requests. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banner Liqui-Moly-Stadion.jpg. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Banners are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Ildo Avetta, died in 2011. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2082. Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Verloren16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: plain text PDF (and JPEG) content. Textual content should be contributed to an appropriate project as wiki pages, not uploaded as a file.
Omphalographer (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- When I saved the textfile Contrareformatie in het zuiden., it was niet appropriate for my Wikipedia page. So I deleted it. It is better like that.
- Johan. Verloren16 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Verloren16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: text files with no substantial content.
- File:Van de Wiele beoordeelt mijn werk.pdf
- File:P.Abels.pdf
- File:Mellink recentie.pdf
- File:Knetsch beoordeling.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Verloren16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text docs, out of scope.
- File:Boekbespreking Hageman Nijmegen 1976.pdf
- File:Waar en wanneer is Karel V geboren.pdf
- File:Recensie Ludo Vandamme.pdf
- File:Uitreiking erepenning Marnixring aan Luc Devoldere 2017.pdf
- File:Deschamps, Eustache Literair Gent.pdf
- File:Gentse spelen van 1539 Literair Gent.pdf
- File:De plaats van Guy de Brès.pdf
- File:Utenhove, Karel Literair Gent 2005.pdf
- File:Utenhove, Jan Literair Gent 2005.pdf
- File:Huldeadressen-bij-het-afscheid.pdf
- File:Boekbespreking Henk van Nierop.pdf
- File:Gewijzigde-straatnamen-na-de-fusie-van-1977.pdf
- File:Recensie Decavele Dageraad Reformatie JEH, 28 (1977 4).pdf
- File:Boekbespreking De dageraad van de Reformatie.pdf
- File:Kerk en geloofsbeleving in Vlaanderen 16de eeuw.pdf
- File:Rbph 0035-0818 1987 num 65 4 5655 t1 0898 0000 2.pdf
- File:Prof. A.F. Mellink schrijft een boekbeoordeling.pdf
- File:Meta-magazine-article-pdf-200604 DeKeyzer.pdf
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Погребной Станислав (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious own works - small poor-quality images without EXIF. I've marked one file for speedy deletion as confirmed copyvio.
- File:Вид на главный дворец.jpg
- File:Проект здания Мосгордумы на территории ансамбля.jpg
- File:Зал второго этажа, проект реставрации Мальцева.jpg
- File:Зал второго этажа, вид на заделанное окно.jpg
- File:Главный двусветный зал второго этажа.jpg
- File:Здания со двора до реставрации.jpg
- File:Элементы отделки (вид до реставрации).jpg
Юрий Д.К 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paintings by René Magritte
[edit]Magritte died in 1967. Not public domain yet.
- File:L'art de la conversa, Magritte.jpg
- File:L'assassino minacciato.jpg
- File:La bella captiva.jpg
- File:Les passejades d'Euclides, Magritte.jpg
- File:Magritte René François Ghislain - Les amants (1928).jpg
- File:Panorama popular, Magritte.jpg
- File:Periode 04.jpg
- File:PM 148558 B Brugge.jpg
- File:PM 148559 B Brugge.jpg
- File:Rene Magritte, 1964.jpg
- File:René Magritte, "Nude".jpg
- File:Sixteenth-of-september.jpg
Yann (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Csaba Kertész (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment COM:INUSE at en:Škoda Superb. Looks like it might be a copyvio though. --Rosenzweig τ 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Own creative work of the uploader, out of scope. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, no FOP for 2D works in Malta — Rhododendrites talk | 20:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wikiuser829 (talk · contribs)
[edit]User blocked for copyvios, small images without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Sri Balaji Swami Trust Sri Dudhadhari Math Inter State Bus Terminal, Raipur.jpg
- File:Dunuwila Lake.jpg
- File:Abujmarh Forest, Sukma.jpg
- File:A Bengal Tiger in Dandakaranya in Bastar Paintinga.jpg
- File:Krishna Janmbhoomi and Shahi Idgah.jpg
- File:Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex.webp
- File:Maa Mahamaya on Mahanavami.jpg
- File:Maa Samleshwari, Raipur.jpg
- File:Panoramic View of Navdurga in Mahamaya Mandir.jpg
- File:Dudhadhari Math Raipur.jpg
- File:Maa Mahamaya Raipur.jpg
- File:ISBT Raipur.jpg
Yann (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused joke image. Omphalographer (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused promotional image of unclear significance. Omphalographer (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a probable copyright violation of one or both of the background photos.[3] Verbcatcher (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MercenarySpec (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused screenshots of an unidentified web site (probably some sort of game, but no idea which one).
- File:Sem TítuloasASas.png
- File:CapturarGalinhas.png
- File:Rei galinhas.png
- File:Sem Títuloasd.png
- File:Sem Título12345.png
- File:Farm123.png
- File:Rei Galinha.png
- File:Sem Títuloash.png
- File:Capturar2asddfsf.png
- File:Capturarasdasfg.png
- File:Capturar1231345.png
- File:Capturar123.png
- File:20527516 2196190280607328 779628637 nas.png
- File:Capturar34.png
- File:Capturar3.png
- File:Capturar2.png
- File:Capturar1.png
- File:Batedores.png
- File:Relatório.png
Omphalographer (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Piperhaywood (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused screenshots of documentation for some software ("Memory Machine"?).
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 2.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 3.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 1.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 5.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 4.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 6.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 8.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 7.jpg
- File:Memory Machine help screenshot 9.jpg
Omphalographer (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused, unidentified parliament diagrams.
- File:Svgfiles 2017-08-08-14-32-29-642540-8335755607791102297.svg
- File:Svgfiles 2017-08-08-14-22-30-858623-13791756278131582945.svg
- File:Svgfiles 2017-08-08-14-20-30-545558-13155069303949497889.svg
Omphalographer (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused screenshots of some unidentified software.
- File:DECIMALES.png
- File:PARAMATH074.png
- File:PARAMCAJA40.png
- File:PARAM1CAJA40.png
- File:PARAM2CAJA40.png
- File:PARAM2ATH074.png
- File:PARAM1ATH074.png
Omphalographer (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright Infringement of https://revistaferroviaria.com.br/2023/05/da-ccr-para-o-metro-bh/ Sorocabano 32 (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused organizational chart of a school in Indonesia. Omphalographer (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused organizational chart of a school in Vietnamese. Omphalographer (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: screenshot of an unidentified web page. Omphalographer (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused low-quality Venn diagram. Omphalographer (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LiPeihua91 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused screenshots and diagrams of some unidentified piece of conference room software.
- File:Seat Management.jpg
- File:Conference Management Software.jpg
- File:The operation interface.jpg
- File:System Diagram .jpg
Omphalographer (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No evidence there is permission to use this file under CC 4.0 Imcdc (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Jordan A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused raster version of File:Symbol keep vote.svg. Omphalographer (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This was taken in Montreal, Canada. Krok6kola (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: temporary poster that can't benefit from freedom of panorama (if any). --Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio from Pixabay, not "own work". 2003:C0:8F28:E000:F49C:92C9:3010:6178 11:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Source & license fixed. --Achim55 (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No permission from the Instagram post A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
low quality, unlike own work. 0x0a (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused screenshot of a web page. Omphalographer (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal artwork. Omphalographer (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this photo of a mural located inside Kennedy Town Station is not covered by Hong Kong law on freedom of panorama, sorry. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
https://sport-ptuj.si/sportni-objekti/sportniobjekt/5 (© 2020 Zavod za šport Ptuj) ZimskoSonce (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.nzs.si/novica/Triglav_s_prednostjo_s_Ptuja?id=46947&id_objekta=1 (Copyright © 2023 | Nogometna zveza Slovenije) ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
© 2023 Football Club Drava Ptuj ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Zakaj bi to izbrisali? Noogometni urejevalec (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
© 2023 Football Club Drava Ptuj (https://www.facebook.com/FCDravaPtuj/posts/pfbid0KTwhVxX1FpG3jcffpg3bQnKQijSJKC6YcArwXMJLuC1Vmey198cPtGg1UsWMHazjl?locale=sl_SI; https://fcdrava.com/2023/09/28/sd-gerecja-vas-fc-drava-ptuj/) ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/FCDravaPtuj/posts/pfbid0ue7Cqcbb1GGNwurVKxd6EeJu8tGkaAFkGeoUhqpi5B6AqaCYcABEEAm2bWRGJNUZl?locale=sl_SI (© 2023 Football Club Drava Ptuj) ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Football, crown, flower and animal – they all are complex. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No EXIF, probably taken from: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4142218512530714&set=в-иркутске-может-появиться-камерный-театр-сцена-поддержать-проект-создания-культ . 0x0a (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Non-notanle people, not in use, out of scope. Komarof (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
copyvio; © oricon ME inc. Svajcr (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Found all over incl https://antenna.co.kr/LucidFall - needs permission to keep Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Non-free picture from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=599861048605437 Michał Sobkowski (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- According to the uploader it is picture taken by her. See no problem with this, as the proper VTRS agreement has been already sent. Polimerek (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- They have also added an information on fb, that the picture is published on terms of CC By-SA 4.0. Polimerek (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is solved, I am withdrawing my request. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Commons:De minimis Trade (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert in copyright law, but it looks to me like even this red carpet takes up about as much space as the poster. Mithoron (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted poster is central focus of image. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused logo. Lymantria (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Previously published at https://www.instagram.com/p/CNs1U4op0c9/, please submit copyright statement to COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
appears to be a crop of a social media photo, a version of this was published in https://www.instagram.com/p/CNcdnmDjSaX/?hl=en, a year before upload here. Please provide a more accurate source info and submit a copyright statement to COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW. It's a photograph of a screen. (see Moiré pattern and screen bezel) 0x0a (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in South Korea, artist 김세중 died in 1986 A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. Omphalographer (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Is has been replaced by "Sdot Micha Airbase Map.png" in en-Wikipedia Sdo216 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep not a valid reason for deletion. It does not matter whether the map is up-to-date. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map Sdot Micha.png Verbcatcher (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep So it's presumably a historic map. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: software architecture diagram lacking context. Omphalographer (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tariksenol897 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Picture taken in class room of high school student, and seem to be used as practical joke (or just as test edit) on English Wikipedia three years ago, see here. This should not be kept around here. -- Mdd (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Not uploaders own work. See detail Information at Alamy and google image search. GeorgHH • talk 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
من آن را به اشتباه آپلود کردم عرفان گلی گوزالان (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The video this screenshot is from was uploaded as CC-BY by Kim Kataguiri. While Kim Kataguiri is the person being interviewed in the podcast episode, the copyright holder is Monark, the host, so Kim can't release it under CC-BY; only Monark could. Skyshifter (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tanbiruzzaman as no permission (No permission since)
COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would say this is below TOO:US, but I don't know the level for Bangladesh. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant to the much higher quality File:Pathao - Here with You.png. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Blurry image, File:Batangasjf0149 14.JPG is much better. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This map is not created by the uploader, as its content states that the Swedish Orienteering Federation has issued the map. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Musée du Louvre Darafsh (1343).jpg with the same angle and lesser quality (a bit blury) Miniwark (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This file is sourced from The Jerusalem Post, not Tasnim. Although Tasnim has a gallery for this event and its staff photographer Morteza Salehi was present there, this photograph does not appear on the site. Also, if we assume that this photograph is freely-licensed, beasue Iranian law does not accept FOP, this file would be a derivative work as it depicts a bust statue. De minimis does not apply due to the statue being the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This photograph (from here) seems to be OK with Commons. I suggest the uploader to use it as a replacement. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete We don't play with copyright. Tradediatalk 09:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Une version en noir et blanc a été téléversée et est préférée par le sujet. Kimfon10 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment COM:INUSE at multiple projects. --Rosenzweig τ 14:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope? Trade (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg Fry1989 eh? 14:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The photo is licensed fine, however it is a derivative work of the statue, which is from 2000 and is by sculptor Amaryllis Bataille . France's freedom of panorama is non-commercial only, which unfortunately fails our site policy. See COM:FOP France. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Re-upload of deleted file Anders (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio, logo beyond TOO. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is free Baratiiman (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Design of a hand holding a gun, with a book with a plant growing out of it is not "free". However, simple text can be below the threshold of originality. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete We don't play with copyright. Tradediatalk 09:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Taken from https://www.instagram.com/p/Cxvsi4EAZV0/?hl=en&img_index=4 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- La foto subida es aportada por la persona que a la que hace referencia el artículo, siendo libre de derechos, con lo cual no hay motivo para que sea borrada. Ella la utiliza en su instagram. Cuenqui (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of a free license at the original source. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Metadata credits fotonio22/Toni Ramos, a different photographer from another upload marked "self" by the user.
- File:Patri Blazquez.jpg
- File:Paula Molano.jpg
- File:Maria Barcelona.jpg
- File:Lucia Guti.jpg
- File:Chuli Lega.jpg
- File:Puche Lega.jpg
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Las fotos subidas son aportadas por las personas a las que hace referencia el artículo, siendo libres de derecho, con lo cual no hay motivo para ser borradas. Cuenqui (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary, low-quality version of File:President of Finland Kyösti Kallio.jpg. Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary, low-quality version of File:President of Finland Kyösti Kallio.jpg. Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, fictitious/non-notable micronation flag used only in two deleted English Wikipedia drafts. Xeroctic (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Clarification needed where this page is coming from; it seems to be a page from a book, and I can’t find it on the indicated website that was used as a source Sietske (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. This appears to be a plain text document printed out from Apple Pages. It's also poorly formatted. The content should be presented as a wikitext table, not a PDF. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- HI this link https://moesson.pictura-dp.nl/issue/MOESSON/1985-12-01/edition/0/page/22?period=1-12-1985&sort=relevance&query=
- was the beginning of an echange of letters between W.Dezentje , V.Florentinus en G.Meliezer , a got the lettres and send them Jan Litjens. Onderzoeker namens de 2de kamer Deze brieven zitten ook allemaal in het archief van Loghem (2000 pagina's) over het Indisch verzet
- Jan belde me net. Deze brieven zitten ook allemaal in het archief van Loghem (2000 pagina's) over het Indisch verzet.
- Jan gaat nakijken of al deze mannen bekend zijn in Nederland en of deze mannen op de erelijst moeten komen!
- Met vriendelijke groet,
- Roel Rijks
- Oprichter/Vrijwilliger Comité Ereschuld Onderscheidingen
- www.ereschuldonderscheidingen.nl
- Bestuurslid Stichting Herdenkingsmonument Militairen
- www.monumentoftolerance.com Karin58 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be from https://oorlogsgravenstichting.nl/ and that site has a GNU-license. If that is true (I didn't look for it), I think there is no copyvio problem. Erik Wannee (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
small file size, low resolution, no EXIF, unlikely to be own work Polarlys (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Not own work, subject is uploader. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio. The statue was installed in 1994. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Unused photo by Flickr user "John Chryslar" uploaded to Commons by Raphael.concorde (likely the same person, elsewhere online as "Raphael Chryslar") accounts that have done dishonest descriptions, photoshops and hoaxes; Flickr account now blacklisted and Commons account inef blocked on Commons and en:w. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Source of the photograph is Facebook. Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work (author claims it was created in 2023 while the image appears to be included in this news article from 2017 which gives no indication of free licensing) and it appears to be a picture take of a computer screen (from a computer mouse visible in the middle of the image). Mifter (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The photograph is attributed to Anastasiya Fedorenko, permission from this person is needed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Probably intentional flickrwashing by uploader. All these uploaded onto Flickr minutes before uploading on Commons, low resolution, authors' names and metadata missing, these Flickr accounts have no more activity except this single upload.
Komarof (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
want some new kind Irfania IT Center (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. --Yann (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, appears to be a screenshot from a computer game. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from Television, cannot be a work created by that flickr user HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation, requires permission from the creator of the map, who appears to be Tim Paul.[4] Verbcatcher (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Nontrivial product photos - COM:PACKAGING Omphalographer (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Is has been replaced by "Sdot Micha Airbase Map deutsch.png" in de-Wikipedia Sdo216 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason for deletion. It does not matter whether the map is up-to-date. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map Sdot Micha AB.png. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(c) IGN, not own work, no free license. Yann (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(c) IGN, not own work, no free license. Yann (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(c) IGN, not own work, no free license. Yann (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Raffaello Fagnoni, died in 1966. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2037.
- File:Chiesa di San Giuseppe Artigiano (Montebeni), campanile.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Giuseppe Artigiano (Montebeni), esterno.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Giuseppe Artigiano (Montebeni), interno.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Giuseppe Artigiano (Montebeni), porta.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Giuseppe Artigiano (Montebeni), vetrata.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Screengrab from Al Jazeera TV, as the description suggests HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Unused duplicate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused low-quality alternate version of File:Flag of Nuevo Leon.svg. Omphalographer (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
most probably not own work (possible copyright violation) Mateus2019 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Source website has a CC-BY-ND license which is not allowed. MKFI (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
No indication of a free license on source website. MKFI (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation. Creator is not the copyright holder Masti (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Materialscientist. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation. The creator is not the copyright holder. Masti (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Materialscientist. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Godzilla in art
[edit]Derivative work of the character Godzilla owned and licensed by Toho
File:Bishzilla blink santa rotated.gifFile:Bishzilla blink santa.gif- File:Gdzilla!!!.jpg
- File:Glaze (13869543003).jpg
- File:Godzilla arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court 1.png
- File:Godzilla arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court 2.png
- File:Godzilla Fan Art 2.png
- File:Godzilla Fan Art.png
- File:Godzilla King of the Monsters Fan Poster.jpg
- File:Godzilla Simpsons.svg
- File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Graffiti life (13722658485).jpg
- File:NYCC 2022 09.jpg
- File:Ґодзілла 2014 Білий Фон.png
- File:Ґодзілла 2014.jpg
Trade (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep File:Bishzilla blink santa rotated.gif and File:Bishzilla blink santa.gif. I don't know who placed them in the category Category:Godzilla in art, but it's an incorrect categorization. They do not represent Godzilla in any way, but are portraits of User:Bishzilla, a longtime user at the English Wikipedia. They are admittedly not used in any article, but frequently for Christmas greetings from Bishzilla, as shown by the "Usage on en.wikipedia.org" on the file pages. Surely a both harmless and cheering use, which contributes to good cheer on Wikipedia. They don't in my opinion even look anything like Godzilla, and do not infringe the copyright of Toho. (I drew them myself.) Bishonen (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
- Kept these two.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Bishzilla blink santa rotated.gif and File:Bishzilla blink santa.gif, I do not think that these two are infringing. Paul August (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I’m a huge believer in intellectual property rights. But this is farfetched. Our article zilla discusses the wide usage of the suffix. Toho has now trademarked zilla; but this is not a trademark use. Even looking at this as Godzilla, this would apper to fit fair use as a parody in that it passes the four factor test of fair use: It is non-commercial, it is creative, it has almost no relation to the original, and it has no effect on the market for the original. Objective3000 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Objective3000, are you commenting on all the files listed above, including the ones called Godzilla-something? For my part, I object to listing so many of them at one deletion request — it invites misunderstandings, which is why I figured I'd better mention specifically which (two) files I was talking about. Bishonen (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
- I was only commenting on the first two, now accepted. Looking at the others, IANAL but arguing a case I think falls under parody fair use. The fan poster and Simpsons shot are likely violations. No opinion on the others. Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair Use images are strictly forbidden from Commons. If anything that only supports deletion--Trade (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting, and avoids arguments. Doesn't affect my opinion of the Santa related images as they were drawn by the contributor and not close to copying any copyrighted image, making fair use irrelevant for those images. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair Use images are strictly forbidden from Commons. If anything that only supports deletion--Trade (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Objective3000, are you commenting on all the files listed above, including the ones called Godzilla-something? For my part, I object to listing so many of them at one deletion request — it invites misunderstandings, which is why I figured I'd better mention specifically which (two) files I was talking about. Bishonen (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
- Keep on principle. Overly broad request. Not any depiction of Godzilla in art is a derivative work of the copyrighted depiction of Godzilla, therefore it's not all fair use. The image of Godzilla, as any generic large dinosaur lizard that may want to demolish a Japanese city etc., is essentially in the public domain. Only something that's a clear derivative work of a copyrighted depiction of Godzilla.
Godzilla, the 1954 film, is in the public domain.The 1954 is not, but many depictions of Godzilla have entered the public domain in US and Japan. We shouldn't kowtow to a private company's overly aggressive policing of all depictions of a copyrighted character. Andre🚐 23:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) - Keep I can find no evidence that the widely-used term "zilla," when used as a suffix, is a copyright violation. FWIW, using "god" as a prefix, as in "GodBish," is similarly unproblematic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; overborad listing. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be from the same photoshoot as this photo, not an original work: http://www.ourensecf.es/articulo/ourense-envialia-fsf/spi/20170726174102035570.html Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Popoliitafullscale.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Popoliitacrop.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Confini della Calabria.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Confini della Puglia.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Confini Campania.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Confini del Molise.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Complexe sportif de Penvillers 2021.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Barat-de-Vin en 2018.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Bassine agricole de Pouillac (Cramchaban, Charente-Maritime, France).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Vue aérienne du lac de Caussade (Pinel-Hauterive, Lot et Garonne, France).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
File:État des travaux du projet de la Famille missionnaire de Notre-Dame à Saint-Pierre-de-Colombier en juillet 2020.jpg
[edit]https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:État des travaux du projet de la Famille missionnaire de Notre-Dame à Saint-Pierre-de-Colombier en juillet 2020.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Vue aérienne de La Lanterne de 2021 (Versailles, France).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Photo aérienne des mégabassines dans les Deux-Sèvres (août 2021).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Bassine agricole de Pouillac (Cramchaban, Charente-Maritime, France) - 2021.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Mégabassines dans les Deux-Sèvres (25 août 2021) avec nom des communes.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Méga-bassine à Cramchaban (17170) 25 août 2021.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Bassine à La Laigne (17170, Charente-Maritime, France) 25 août 2021.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Photo aérienne de La Villedieu-du-Clain (86340) et la bassine au nord de la ville.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Méga-bassine de Roches-Prémarie-Andillé (86340) 19 juillet 2020.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:La Villedieu du Clain (86340) et Roches-Prémarie-Andillé (86340).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Bassine de Nouaillé-Maupertuis (86340) - 19 juillet 2020 (avec échelle).png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This picture is not licensed by IGN. It's coming from BD ORTHO wich is under Licenceouverte (see [here https://www.data.gouv.fr/en/datasets/bd-ortho-r/]) compatible with CC. Triton (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Bassine de Vivonne (Vienne) en 2020.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Stade de Penvillers - Vue satellite.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Stade Robert-Bobin, Dole.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Complexe Paul-Martin de Tavaux.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Stade Guy-Piriou.png” but not processed yet, ticket:2023110610004359. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, From Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright status is unclear, probably permission is needed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Brazilian government portal has a CC-BY-ND license which is not allowed (https://www.gov.br/pt-br). MKFI (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Brazilian government portal has a CC-BY-ND license which is not allowed (https://www.gov.br/pt-br). MKFI (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
(c) IGN, not own work, no free license. Yann (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Yann. That use is allowed. It only missed the « © IGN » (now added) and we're supposed to add the year but I've dug a bit and I can't find that. Do they mean the current year? (i.e. the year when the copy was made?) The year the copy was made is in the page too.
- licensing text is here:
- https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/mentions-legales
- l’IGN autorise les réutilisations suivantes : [...]
- insertion dans un site, un blog, plateforme de partage ou autre application web permettant la consultation sans inscription à tous les internautes, dans la limite d’une ou plusieurs images de taille maximum 1000×1000 pixels ou équivalent, ou encore environ 1 000 000 de pixels; toute publication devra être accompagnée du logo Géoportail et du logo IGN ou des mentions littérales « © IGN » et l’année. Toutefois, ces mentions ne devront qu’indiquer l’origine de la copie d’écran sans induire de confusion entre le site de publication et le Géoportail.
- So that's valid for ALL maps coming from Géoportail (those not too big anyway but here big ones don't fit either). No fuss, just add the ©IGN thing.
- the {{PD-1923}} is wrong but I don't know which one it should be.
Pueblo89 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Désolé, mais non, ces conditions ne sont pas acceptables pour Commons. Il faut une autorisation illimitée, irrévocable, pour tout le monde, et pour tout usage.
- Sorry, but no, these conditions are not acceptables for Commons. We need an unlimited, irrevocable authorization, for everyone, and for any use. Yann (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour Yann,
- 1) merci d'ajouter un appel genre [[User:Pueblo89|Pueblo89]] ou d'effet similaire dans tout message ajouté, sinon comment sait-on s'il y a une réponse sauf à jouer au flic ou au paranoïaque (ou les deux) ?
- 2) Je ne comprends pas (j'y connais rien). Qu'est-ce que ça donne si on ajoute le « © IGN » dans l'image ?
- Sinon ma foi, faites ce qui vous semble bon.
- Bonne soirée. Pueblo89 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Pokemon figures (COM:TOY), apparently self-promotional (COM:ADVERT), low quality Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Secretary Blinken Arrives to Host a Town Hall With YSEALI Alumni on Environmental Responsibility in Phnom Penh (52263169899).jpg
[edit]Likely copyrighted original artwork. Ooligan (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-free content, derivative work, unclear sourcing. Image contains copyrighted painting by a living artist (Allison Zuckerman). Unclear sourcing, this appears to be a professional image from her site or her gallery's site. 19h00s (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation, may not be the uploader's own work. Uploaded to FaceBook before Commons.[5] Metadata indicates a Facebook source. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DesiBoy101 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 (may be in scope) Wdwd (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Description and title could be improved, but if this is the state minister presenting some award, it's clearly in scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per PaterMcFly. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
not free image/copy vio 2001:E68:5423:AD29:38F1:B244:F05E:488 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; author's name in Exif data doesn't correspond to uploader's user name, "CHAN BOON KAI/The Star" in the description looks like this was taken from a third source. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ushiwaka1189 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The latest round of uploads by a sock of GMatteotti. As before, these ca. 1940s German photos are claimed to be anoymous and therefore in the public domain in Germany. It's quite doubtful if the photos are actually "anonymous" in a legal sense in Germany, as we don't know when, how and where they were first published, if that publication was uncredited and if the photographer was not publicly known otherwise (as required by German law). All we have is blog and web sources, no contemporary sources of the photo.
But even if the "anonymous" claim were true and the photos were published right away in ca. 1940, they would still have been protected on the URAA date for Germany in 1996, and the US copyright (until the end of 2035) would have been restored. The files should be deleted.
Rosenzweig τ 10:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok for deletion. 79.20.12.95 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The URAA date would not matter, the Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated or invalidated all Reich era patents, copyrights, and trademarks in the US. I believe that ended on May 13, 1966. --RAN (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- No. Not true. As I wrote in others DR already, that only applies to a small number of German works from that period.
- Per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights, “Any copyrights that were "ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian" were not restored if the restored copyright would be held by "a government or an instrumentality thereof".” There is no indication that the copyright of these photographs was held by a government. And per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Germany, “A number of German cases indicate that the copyright in images or graphic works remains with the author, even if the works were produced for official use. All of these German copyrights were extended in period to 70 years pma before the date of restoration, and so the US copyrights have been restored.”
- And due to the nature of US copyrights, these photographs most likely weren't even copyrighted in the US at the time, so there was nothing to "confiscate". There was a copyright treaty in force between Germany and the US, but any German author / rights holder would have needed to register a copyright just like their US counterparts. Per [6] (section Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents), “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Hitler's Mein Kampf was among the works which had their copyright vested, along with works by a number of European authors and composers, many of them French or Italian. The claim that the Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated "Reich period" copyrights in the USA (or rather vested than confiscated) is true for works like Mein Kampf of Friedrich Beilstein's Handbuch der organischen Chemie, but as can be read in the linked article, this certainly does not apply to all German works as implied. So there was no impediment to the URAA restoring this photograph's US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 01:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it's so, you can delete them. 95.239.125.208 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok for deletion. 193.207.150.170 14:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it's so, you can delete them. 95.239.125.208 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- And due to the nature of US copyrights, these photographs most likely weren't even copyrighted in the US at the time, so there was nothing to "confiscate". There was a copyright treaty in force between Germany and the US, but any German author / rights holder would have needed to register a copyright just like their US counterparts. Per [6] (section Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents), “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Hitler's Mein Kampf was among the works which had their copyright vested, along with works by a number of European authors and composers, many of them French or Italian. The claim that the Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated "Reich period" copyrights in the USA (or rather vested than confiscated) is true for works like Mein Kampf of Friedrich Beilstein's Handbuch der organischen Chemie, but as can be read in the linked article, this certainly does not apply to all German works as implied. So there was no impediment to the URAA restoring this photograph's US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 01:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I am pinging Clindberg, who is well read on international copyright law. Rights were restored to named authors (except Hitler), anonymous works had no one to restore them to, and remained exempt from copyright in the USA. --RAN (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Where do you get that claim that "Rights were restored to named authors" (only)? None of our URAA pages say so. The country tables at en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights even explicitly mention anonymous works several times. And how do you even know that these images are "anonymous"? As I wrote above, "It's quite doubtful if the photos are actually "anonymous" in a legal sense in Germany, as we don't know when, how and where they were first published, if that publication was uncredited and if the photographer was not publicly known otherwise (as required by German law)." --Rosenzweig τ 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it's so, you can delete them for copyright violation. 82.60.174.64 11:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- These were anonymous works, there is no one to restore the copyright to. The Office of Alien Property Custodian restored copyright to named authors. --RAN (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's just a repetition of what you wrote above. You completely ignored my replies above and did not answer any of the questions I asked. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights is from a tertiary source, Wikipedia itself and the quote involves the copyright to Mein Kampf, which was not restored to Hitler's heirs but to the German government. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Accd. to a Spruchkammer (tribunal) decision from 1948 (confirmed in 1965), Hitler's assets (which included his copyrights) were transferred to the state of Bavaria (there was no German government in 1948). de:Mein Kampf#Urheberrecht. But what has that to do with these photographs? --Rosenzweig τ 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete them for copyvio. Nanafuji (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: both files deleted by Túrelio on 18 January referring to this discussion; apparently, Túrelio forgot to close the request. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Very low quality, probably the original version is copyrighted. Riad Salih (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: very low quality, unused, there are better alternatives, so erring on the side of caution. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
File:EDEN-BRUSHED-NICKLE-36-Ceiling-mounted-Brushed-Nickle-Complete-LED-Music-Shower-Set-Rainfall-Waterfall-Mist-Spray-Water-Column-Large-Body-Jets-Smart-Living-and-Techn 672x672.webp
[edit]Spam link in description; obviously not "Own work" because images stolen from a page on AliExpress (which I cannot link due to the spam filter) 89.177.54.189 11:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from https://www.si.edu/object/rocking-chair%3Achndm_1992-26-1 where there is a note abiut usage conditions. I cannto determine that it is licensed for onward use. The uploader will wish to clarify this to COM:VRT and note that COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; if it's really the uploader's own photo, they can upload the full size file with EXIF info attached. —holly {chat} 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Het flesontwerp is auteursrechtelijk beschermd.[1] Zie ook com:PACKAGE.
--トトト (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Имеется дубликат в более высоком разрешении - File:Russia_stamp_I.Talkov_1999_2r.jpg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Разрешение, может быть, и высокое, но качество хуже - достаточно посмотреть на лицо Талькова и сравнить. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Engelberthumperdink В такой ситуации скорее всего необходимо обращение в Графическую мастерскую, чтобы при высоком разрешении файла оставалось высокое качество. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- А что мешает существовать на Викискладе двум вариантам изображения одного и того же произведения? Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Engelberthumperdink В такой ситуации скорее всего необходимо обращение в Графическую мастерскую, чтобы при высоком разрешении файла оставалось высокое качество. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reason we can't have both. —holly {chat} 19:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dnvlio
[edit]Dnvlio (talk · contribs) uploaded several flags he invented himself. Useless for education:
- File:Флаг Волгжской народной республики Волгоград.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
- File:Флаг Волгжской народной республики 2 с надписью.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
- File:Флаг Волгжской народной республики 2.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
- File:Флаг Волгжской народной республики.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
- File:Амурская Республика.jpg
- File:Герб Белгородской народной республики.jpg
- File:Паспорт Волгжской Народной Республики.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
- File:Герб Волгжской Народной Республики.jpg — also it's derrivate work from project by Vladislav Koval (В. Э. Коваль), not PD
— Redboston 12:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a work by w:es:Pedro Longás Bartibás (died in 1968). It would be protected unitl 2039 per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep While the book may be copyrighted, the transcript of a document from 1563 in the book is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The original 1563 text is in Arabic (w:Oran fatwa), this is a translation (in Spanish?). As the translator has also a right over it, depending on the date it was translated and the translator, it could be copyrighted or not. If it is a work by Pedro Longás Bartibás (or any other person who died less than 70 years ago), then the translation would be copyrighted. Do you know who the translator of this specific text is? HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; fr:Fatwa d'Oran claims the translation is by Bartibas. —holly {chat} 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
pt: Vide Commons:Deletion requests/File:André Ceciliano Presidente da Alerj.png e dezenas de outros semelhantes: segundo o levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (Assembleia Legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. Além disso, esta imagem nem está realmente no link alegado como fonte. // en: according to the survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. This one isn't even actually on the link claimed to be the source. Solon 26.125 13:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the same situation, and uploaded by the same user, are File:Dep. Geraldo Moreira.jpg, File:Zito 2008.gif, File:Deputado Dica.webp and File:José Camilo Zito (PP).jpg (in the link, but attributed as Divulgação/Alerj). Plus, File:Dep. Alexandre Cardoso.png is is copyright violation, its source states All rights reserved at the bottom of the source website. Solon 26.125 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
File:En-an.ogg file available.so applied to delete. -Info-farmer (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and converted to a redirect. —holly {chat} 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann and Abalg: So what was the conclusion for this image? —holly {chat} 19:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Satellite imagery by IGN is free. --Yann (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The file is not an own work, it is attributed to Thomas Lodin from Aquashot/ASP in EXIF. However, the uploader earlier provided VRTS permission for other files owned by that ASP, see File:Marlon Lipke.jpg and File:Asp logo 2bleus.png. So it is possible that he was authorized to upload this picture too, as well as File:RB FioravantiEurochamp Leroy 001.jpg. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have inquired at the VRT noticeboard. —holly {chat} 19:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete None of the two tickets: ticket:2012122010006947 and ticket:2012122010006901 are related to this file. All of their uploads should be checked on an individual basis. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. —holly {chat} 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Sculptor died in 1954, undelete in 2025. It is public domain in the US though. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: fr:Lucien Lacour says he died in 1944, so shouldn't this be PD now? Or do we need to apply a wartime copyright extension? —holly {chat} 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Holly Cheng: , Maxime Real del Sarte died in 1954. If Lacour were the sole creator, then yes, it would be PD now. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Ha, I didn't realize that was a second creator name for some reason,. —holly {chat} 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Фото из личного архива: автор неизвестен, лицензия неверная. -- Tomasina (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC) (English: "Photo from the personal archive, unknown authorship, fake license). --Werter1995 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Подскажите, какую лицензию нужно указать? CC0? Alyssa 91 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Unless you own the copyright because you shot the photo, you have no authority to license it in any way. Read COM:Licensing: " A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, who is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar)." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works, e.g. from print source, unlikely to be own work Polarlys (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete crop of a photo on IMDb, which is credited to Rob Wainfur.[7] TinEye shows multiple earlier examples online, including a blog post dated before the upload to Commons.[8] Verbcatcher (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright symbol, image from 1975 filming of Jaws. Now properly credited to Rob Wainfur, but US not use pma rule. --RAN (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- IMDb dates this to 1982, during the filming of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. The difference between 1975 and 1982 is significant, because between 1978 and 1989 US works could be registered for copyright up to five years after publication, see {{PD-US-1978-89}} and Commons:Hirtle chart. We need evidence of non-registration. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch, I agree with ET. --RAN (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this church, Alessandro Giuntoli, died in 1980. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2051.
- File:Chiesa di Sant'Antonio da Padova a Mercatale.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova 1.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova 2.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova 3.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova 4.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova-Facciata.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova-facciata.jpg
- File:Sant'Antonio da Padova-il cristo.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Chiesa di Sant'Antonio da Padova a Mercatale.jpg since the diocese of Prato has authorized the usage of all the photos included in its website with license GFDL per VRT ticket.--Friniate (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm cool with that. Thanks for the info. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except for the one covered by the ticket. —holly {chat} 21:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
German photograph that dates in the range of 1925 to 1936. Source is a family photo album so it may have been unpublished until recently. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Closing duplicate entry. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) RAN (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep License added. While the image may have resided in a family album it appears to have been taken by a professional photographer and been made public when it was given to the sitter. The extremely narrow depth of field points to a professional photographer. --RAN (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Close-up of a work of art (the cranes arranged into a 'painting') The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Children's Peace Monument and undeleted after a request by Opencooper on my talk page. I'm not convinced that any of the arrangements of cranes are okay to keep (because they're artistic arrangements), but this one certainly stands out from the other two. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- They might be “artistic arrangements”, but each crane was made by a child trying to convey a message to the world. The main purpose of every thing at Hiroshima is to communicate the “never again” message. They beautifully merge it with the zenbazuru. Every one expressing the wish of a thousand children, the same wish. It’s both personal and collective, and it’s a gift for the world and the “spirits”. 2400:2411:C4C1:9000:8F6:844C:AB1F:5EAB 15:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks Squirrel for undeleting and starting a separate deletion request. You're right that this picture stands out compared to other strings of origami. I'm presuming that the part of this image that's in contention is the rectangular arrangement in the center right of the image. The surface of it contains what looks like the Chinese character 「祈」 ("prayer"), with a striped background. This doesn't look any more complex to me than many of the flags we have on Commons. Non-calligraphic Chinese characters are just as uncopyrightable as regular writing. The background is just different stripes of colors. The design being comprised of origami cranes doesn't change that it's a simple design. Opencooper (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't a simple font rendering. This is a 3D work of art and therefore subject to stricter copyrights. If it's just a string of origami cranes, that's probably below TOO, but here, creative choices were involved, which means it's copyrightable. —holly {chat} 18:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Squirrel and Holly, appears to be copyrightable. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sant’Ildefonso (Milan)
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Carlo De Carli, died in 1999. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2070.
- File:4 - Chiesa di S. Ildefonso interno.tif
- File:Carlo De Carli - Chiesa di S. Ildefonso, Milano, 1955-56.jpg
- File:Milano chiesa Sant Ildefonso facciata.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:4 - Chiesa di S. Ildefonso interno.tif and File:Carlo De Carli - Chiesa di S. Ildefonso, Milano, 1955-56.jpg, already undeleted in 2019 as PD-Italy by @Ruthven: after an undeletion request made by the grandson of the architect.--Friniate (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that Ruthven has made some questionable calls when it comes to DRs related to Italy to say the least and them restoring those images seems like another one. Although I won't lose any sleep over it if the images are kept, but still, I'm at least of the opinion that they should still be deleted as COPYVIO regardless of Ruthven restoring them last time. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: 1, kept the other two that were restored by UDR. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Via dei Giardini 7 (Milan)
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Carlo De Carli, died in 1999. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2070.
- File:Carlo De Carli - Casa in via dei Giardini 7, Milano, 1947-49.jpg
- File:Carlo De Carli - Teatro Sant'Erasmo,.jpg
- File:Milano - edificio via dei Giardini 7.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Carlo De Carli - Casa in via dei Giardini 7, Milano, 1947-49.jpg and File:Carlo De Carli - Teatro Sant'Erasmo,.jpg already undeleted in 2019 as PD-Italy by @Ruthven: after an undeletion request made by the grandson of the architect.--Friniate (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like Ruthven has made some bad calls when it comes to DRs related to Italy in the past. So at least IMO the images should be deleted regardless of if they were previously restored. Otherwise I'd be interested to know what legal basis there is for the copyright to transfer over to multiple generations of family. Maybe Italy is an exception, but the last time I checked it only transfers to immediate family members like children and spouses, not grandchildren, and there's no reason it would have expired in this specific case. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, in that case it would be in PD though, if no member of the family has the copyright... Friniate (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I said the grandson wouldn't have the copyright, not that no member of the family does. I'm sure you get the difference. Anyway, baring any evidence to the contrary I assume his immediate family members like a spouse or children would own the copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, article 115 of the italian copyright law speaks generically of "heirs", among which according to the italian succession laws can be included also grandchildren. So yes, he may be the copyright holder, as far as we know. Friniate (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I said the grandson wouldn't have the copyright, not that no member of the family does. I'm sure you get the difference. Anyway, baring any evidence to the contrary I assume his immediate family members like a spouse or children would own the copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, in that case it would be in PD though, if no member of the family has the copyright... Friniate (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like Ruthven has made some bad calls when it comes to DRs related to Italy in the past. So at least IMO the images should be deleted regardless of if they were previously restored. Otherwise I'd be interested to know what legal basis there is for the copyright to transfer over to multiple generations of family. Maybe Italy is an exception, but the last time I checked it only transfers to immediate family members like children and spouses, not grandchildren, and there's no reason it would have expired in this specific case. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-04#File:Carlo_De_Carli_-_Sedia_Compasso_d'Oro,_1954.jpg. @Adamant1: When you mention someone, it is the most basic courtesy to ping thme, otherwise it seems that you open a DR trying to sneak behind the back of the admins. Ruthven (msg) 12:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Friniate had already pinged you in the message I was responding to. So I assumed you were already aware of the conversation. It's kind of hard to sneak around the back of someone that has already been alerted they are being discussed. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Ruthven and UDR. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about who the architect of this building is, they clearly haven't been dead for more then 70 since it was built in the 1993. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date.
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo - Scalinata.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo Apostolo - facciata principale.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo campanile 2.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo campanile.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo esterno.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo facciata.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo ingresso.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo opera.jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo, Luceto - Albisola Superiore (SV).jpg
- File:Chiesa di San Matteo, particolare.jpg
- File:Chiesa San Matteo Luceto.jpg
- File:Esterno chiesa di San Matteo a Luceto.jpg
- File:Golf Club Albisola e Chiesa di San Matteo a Luceto.jpg
- File:La chiesa di San Matteo.jpg
- File:S. Matteo-Luceto.jpg
- File:San Matteo Apostolo in Luceto.jpg
- File:San Matteo Apostolo.jpg
- File:San Matteo Luceto.jpg
- File:San Matteo vista dall'esterno.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a photo of an Italian cultural asset participating in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 competition. See permission details. wiki-ID: 07A1660008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubici (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bubici: I moved your comment since you placed it above the DR. Can you please sign your comments next time? As to the "permission", according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the copyright of works created on behalf of "cultural bodies" lapses back to the original creator after two years. Although it's not clear if that covers churches to begin with, assuming it does that means the church wouldn't have the right to allow Wiki Loves Monuments to take photographs of the building in the first place. Since it was built in 1993. So the "permission" isn't valid. At least not as far as we are concerned. Again though, that's contingent on churches owning the copyright as "cultural bodies" to begin with. But the images should be deleted as COPYVIO either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest in the churches of Albisola Superiore which have been participating in the WLM competition for some years now as the Curia has authorized the possibility of taking photos. The church of San Matteo was not built in 1993 but many years ago. However, if you decide to delete them, you should also delete all the churches that participated in the WLM competition in Italy years ago. However, I asked the person responsible for the WLM competition to participate in the discussion.
- Hi,
- Bubici Bubici (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bubici: I moved your comment since you placed it above the DR. Can you please sign your comments next time? As to the "permission", according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the copyright of works created on behalf of "cultural bodies" lapses back to the original creator after two years. Although it's not clear if that covers churches to begin with, assuming it does that means the church wouldn't have the right to allow Wiki Loves Monuments to take photographs of the building in the first place. Since it was built in 1993. So the "permission" isn't valid. At least not as far as we are concerned. Again though, that's contingent on churches owning the copyright as "cultural bodies" to begin with. But the images should be deleted as COPYVIO either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As we can see here, in 2016 the municipality asked to the owners and copyright holders of other buildings within the municipality to give the authorization to photograph the monuments and using these photos with a CC-BY license. Here we can see that the diocese of Savona and Noli (owner of the buildings) gave indeed these authorizations. Of course it would be much better if we had the letter written directly by the diocese and not only a document of the municipality citing it, so if @Bubici: or other users could provide them then we could get rid of any remaining doubt.--Friniate (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's well and good, but the law is pretty clear that the copyright reverts back to the original artist after two years in cases of "public cultural bodies." If we assume that applies to the diocese then they wouldn't have been able to authorize people to take pictures of the building because they weren't the copyright holders since the building was more then 2 years old at the time. The original architect would have needed to give their permission, and they didn't. So these images are clearly COPYVIO. It seems like you really want to have it both ways where the government owns the copyright to works made on their behalf for 20 years but then it doesn't lapse back to the original creator after 2 in cases of "cultural bodies." You don't get to just pick and choose which laws apply or which don't when it results in the outcome you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- The law doesn't say that and you perfectly know that since I've already explained you what the article 29 really says a number of times. Please, stop making up new non existent articles, a building is not an essay. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- And what has the government to do with the copyright of a church??? Again, you are just trying to confuse the closing admin with nonsense claims, please stop that. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah it does say that. According to the guidelines, which as you know full well is based on article 11 and 29 of the law, "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] This copyright lasts for 20 years, or for 2 years for academies and other public cultural bodies, after which the rights revert to the author." As to what what the government has to do with it, your seem to be fine with following the part of that relating to works created on behalf of the government but then are acting like the part having to do with "public cultural bodies" isn't valid. That's it. Nowhere have I said the government owns the copyright to the church. I'm merely pointing out your double standard when it comes to the part of the law pertaining to works created for the government versus the the catholic church. The church couldn't have given permission to photograph the building because the copyright would have lapsed to the original architect after 2 years regardless though. So stop trying to side tract this with strawmen. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- That sentence is badly written, as I explained you at least other 20 times. If you read the original law you can claerly see how the provision about the 2 year copyright threshold that reverts back to the author is only applied to essays and written communications by academies and public cultural entities. A church is not an essay or a written communication. So your claim is false.
- I sincerely don't know about what double standard you are talking about, I'm arguing that no part of the article 11 or of the article 29 is relevant in this DR, since Italy is not a theocratic state and therefore churches are not a public building and the church is a separate entity from the government.
- There is no strawmen at all here, you are clearly claiming nonsense stuff as the fact that the catholic church is the government or that churches are essays only in order to confuse the situation and get the images deleted although it's highly likely that the copyright holder gave the right to photograph and reproduce the images. Friniate (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- But then your perfectly fine saying that buildings qualify for the 20 year term even though they aren't mentioned anywhere in the part about government works and the only evidence you have that they qualify is a second hand document having to do with databases. So you clearly want to have it both ways. Regardless, if the copyright status of buildings created on behalf of the government expires after 20 years even though the law says absolutely nothing about buildings then there's no reason the copyright on buildings created on behalf of "cultural bodies" wouldn't lapse back to the original architect after 2. Your clearly going to just take whatever position allows the most images to be kept regardless though. Otherwise be my guest and admit your opinion about the 20 year thing is bunk since the law says absolutely nothing about it apply to buildings and I'll call this good. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course you're just saying patently false things as anyone can read here. But I'm not interested in letting you continue your OT: those articles can not be applied here unless you prove that Italy is a theocratic state. Friniate (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You mean patently false stuff like you acting as if this has anything to do with Italy being a theocratic state or not? Be my guest and point where I've said the images should be deleted because Italy is theocratic. Otherwise I'd apprciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth. Your apparent inability to have a basic conversation without resorting to ad hominem is getting super tiring to deal with. It shouldn't be that hard to stick to the subject. Otherwise just don't participate in DRs if your that incapable of discussing the reason I nominated the images for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are claiming that the church is a public entity, it has very much to do with the question if Italy is a theocratic state or not! If you are unable to provide logical argumentations to support your DRs, then don't start them. Friniate (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your the only one using the word "public entity" so I have zero clue what your talking about. Although I will say for the like the fifth time now, don't comment in my DRs or respond to my messages if your just going to put words in my mouth. I'm getting extremely tired of having to counter things that no one is saying and that are patently false just because your incapable of reading or responding to what I'm actually saying for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's the law that uses it, not me. Either the church is a cultural public entity in Italy, or the article that you are citing has nothing to do with this DR. Friniate (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Churches are "private legal entities of a non-profit making character," which are also covered by the article. So yes it does have something to do with the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are not, since the activities of churches can also be for profit according the italian law (art. 16 of the law 222/1985). But even if they were, that would mean that we should keep all these images since the copyright on them would belong to the church and then fall into PD after 20 years. Friniate (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 I agree with @Friniate, the Law 222/1985 specifies that religious entities can have different statuses. Thus, in that case, I doubt that the City Council had the rights to give a permission for the Church. I suppose that we need a permission from the Savona Diocese (unless this Diocese has a non-profit character, an information that I haven't been able to find). Ruthven (msg) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair. I hadn't seen Friniate's most recent comment, but it seems reasonable. At least if it can be determined that the church is a non-profit entity. Otherwise I assume the images would be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it depends from the contract between the diocese and the artist, as I've already said. Friniate (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate In any case, the work is copyrighted, unless the rights belong to the client (the Diocese of Savona) and this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity. What is the most probable is that the diocese is the copyright holder, but that it's not a non-profit entity. But it has to be confirmed... Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was simply answering to the claim that this church would fall under the 2 year-threshold provision. The document that I linked says that the diocese has authorized the images of the church with an open license. Unfortunately I couldn't find the letter of the diocese. Friniate (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate In any case, the work is copyrighted, unless the rights belong to the client (the Diocese of Savona) and this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity. What is the most probable is that the diocese is the copyright holder, but that it's not a non-profit entity. But it has to be confirmed... Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it depends from the contract between the diocese and the artist, as I've already said. Friniate (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair. I hadn't seen Friniate's most recent comment, but it seems reasonable. At least if it can be determined that the church is a non-profit entity. Otherwise I assume the images would be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 I agree with @Friniate, the Law 222/1985 specifies that religious entities can have different statuses. Thus, in that case, I doubt that the City Council had the rights to give a permission for the Church. I suppose that we need a permission from the Savona Diocese (unless this Diocese has a non-profit character, an information that I haven't been able to find). Ruthven (msg) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are not, since the activities of churches can also be for profit according the italian law (art. 16 of the law 222/1985). But even if they were, that would mean that we should keep all these images since the copyright on them would belong to the church and then fall into PD after 20 years. Friniate (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Churches are "private legal entities of a non-profit making character," which are also covered by the article. So yes it does have something to do with the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's the law that uses it, not me. Either the church is a cultural public entity in Italy, or the article that you are citing has nothing to do with this DR. Friniate (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your the only one using the word "public entity" so I have zero clue what your talking about. Although I will say for the like the fifth time now, don't comment in my DRs or respond to my messages if your just going to put words in my mouth. I'm getting extremely tired of having to counter things that no one is saying and that are patently false just because your incapable of reading or responding to what I'm actually saying for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are claiming that the church is a public entity, it has very much to do with the question if Italy is a theocratic state or not! If you are unable to provide logical argumentations to support your DRs, then don't start them. Friniate (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You mean patently false stuff like you acting as if this has anything to do with Italy being a theocratic state or not? Be my guest and point where I've said the images should be deleted because Italy is theocratic. Otherwise I'd apprciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth. Your apparent inability to have a basic conversation without resorting to ad hominem is getting super tiring to deal with. It shouldn't be that hard to stick to the subject. Otherwise just don't participate in DRs if your that incapable of discussing the reason I nominated the images for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course you're just saying patently false things as anyone can read here. But I'm not interested in letting you continue your OT: those articles can not be applied here unless you prove that Italy is a theocratic state. Friniate (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- But then your perfectly fine saying that buildings qualify for the 20 year term even though they aren't mentioned anywhere in the part about government works and the only evidence you have that they qualify is a second hand document having to do with databases. So you clearly want to have it both ways. Regardless, if the copyright status of buildings created on behalf of the government expires after 20 years even though the law says absolutely nothing about buildings then there's no reason the copyright on buildings created on behalf of "cultural bodies" wouldn't lapse back to the original architect after 2. Your clearly going to just take whatever position allows the most images to be kept regardless though. Otherwise be my guest and admit your opinion about the 20 year thing is bunk since the law says absolutely nothing about it apply to buildings and I'll call this good. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah it does say that. According to the guidelines, which as you know full well is based on article 11 and 29 of the law, "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] This copyright lasts for 20 years, or for 2 years for academies and other public cultural bodies, after which the rights revert to the author." As to what what the government has to do with it, your seem to be fine with following the part of that relating to works created on behalf of the government but then are acting like the part having to do with "public cultural bodies" isn't valid. That's it. Nowhere have I said the government owns the copyright to the church. I'm merely pointing out your double standard when it comes to the part of the law pertaining to works created for the government versus the the catholic church. The church couldn't have given permission to photograph the building because the copyright would have lapsed to the original architect after 2 years regardless though. So stop trying to side tract this with strawmen. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- And what has the government to do with the copyright of a church??? Again, you are just trying to confuse the closing admin with nonsense claims, please stop that. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- The law doesn't say that and you perfectly know that since I've already explained you what the article 29 really says a number of times. Please, stop making up new non existent articles, a building is not an essay. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's well and good, but the law is pretty clear that the copyright reverts back to the original artist after two years in cases of "public cultural bodies." If we assume that applies to the diocese then they wouldn't have been able to authorize people to take pictures of the building because they weren't the copyright holders since the building was more then 2 years old at the time. The original architect would have needed to give their permission, and they didn't. So these images are clearly COPYVIO. It seems like you really want to have it both ways where the government owns the copyright to works made on their behalf for 20 years but then it doesn't lapse back to the original creator after 2 in cases of "cultural bodies." You don't get to just pick and choose which laws apply or which don't when it results in the outcome you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Friniate. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Adalberto Libera, died in 1963. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2034.
- File:Cattedrale Cristo Re - SP.jpg
- File:Cattedrale di Cristo Re - SP.jpg
- File:Cattedrale di Cristo Re.jpg
- File:Cattedrale di La Spezia.jpg
- File:Cristo deposto-Angiolo del Santo.jpg
- File:La Spezia - Cattedrale di Cristo Re.jpg
- File:La Spezia-cattedrale cristo re1.jpg
- File:La Spezia-cattedrale cristo re2.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about who the creators of this stained glass window and plaque are, neither one has been dead for more 70 since the church where they are located was built in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- The picture "colored church window in Italy" does not show a detail of the "Cattedrale di Christo Re" in the city of La Spezia in Liguria, to which your objection refers.
- Rather, it was taken in the new part built starting in 1922 in the pilgrimage church of the "Madonna del Sangue" (it. Basilica della Beata Vergine Maria del Sangue di Re) in the small municipality of Re in Piedmont. This church was elevated to the status of a cathedral (Basilica minor) in 1958.
- For this reason, any deletion of this media file must be objected to. Barbara-Ingeborg (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about Category:Madonna del Sangue (Re, Italy). If so, you seem to be right. But then it, or at least the basilica where the window appears to be located, was built in 1958. So the image would still be copyrighted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Actually here I read that the works of the basilica started in 1922 and finished in 1958, so the image could indeed be in PD. Anyway I'd recommend to open a separate DR, since it's a completely different case from the other images.--Friniate (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, the image was taken in the basilica of Re. The construction of the new part of this building started in 1922. 1958 only was the church was upgraded to a basilica. The architect of this new building was Edoardo Collamarini, who already died in 1928, more than 90 years ago. Barbara-Ingeborg (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, it seems then that we should Keep the image per article 27 of the italian copyright law, which gives a 70 years threshold for anonymous or pseudoanonymous works, even if I continue to think that we should split the discussion about this image from the mass DR about another church. Friniate (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about Category:Madonna del Sangue (Re, Italy). If so, you seem to be right. But then it, or at least the basilica where the window appears to be located, was built in 1958. So the image would still be copyrighted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Cristo deposto-Angiolo del Santo.jpg, made in 1913 by the sculptor Angiolo Del Santo, who died in 1938 (cfr). And Keep also File:La Spezia-cattedrale cristo re3.jpg: a simple inscription without any artistic nature, not copyrightable.--Friniate (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really care about the first image, but text can be copyrighted and in no way is a 12 line paragraph a "simple inscription." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's under ToO anyway, there are hundreds of thousands of inscriptions like that. About the first image, well, to put in DR an image in PD is a clear error, so you shouldn't say that you don't care about it, but that you are sorry and that you'll pay more attention the next time. Friniate (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I don't really care about it either way, but no where did I say I nominated File:Cristo deposto-Angiolo del Santo.jpg for deletion because of the sculpture and it isn't the only thing in the image. There's also two paintings that are clearly modern and therefore probably copyrighted. Maybe actually look at the image next. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly de minimis can be applied there. Friniate (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be mixing de minimis with something not being the main subjec of the photograph. They aren't the same thing or mutually exclusive. What matters is if someone can use the image to make a duplicate of the paintings, and they clearly can. Even without having to zoom into the photograph. Although the paintings are pretty clear if you zoom in. So there's no reason they would be de minimis as they clearly aren't a trivial part of the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Where is it written that de minimis can't be applied if you can see a copyrighted object? In the images taken as an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image, so that it's clearly not the way how the guideline works. Friniate (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- As an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image Which is exactly what I'm saying people can do here. So what's your point except that you apparently agree with me that the paintings aren't De minimis since the details are clearly visible? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, now you are just trolling. Friniate (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, Friniate. All these conversations eventually devolve into you lobbing insults at me when its clear you don't have any actual argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Actually it is you that couldn't provide any logical answer to my observations and decided to mock me, but whatever dude. Friniate (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I was mocking you by saying that what you qouted is exactly what I was saying. I'll not to agree with what you write if it triggers you that badly next time though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it does not and you perfectly know that. You are saying that de minimis can not be applied if you can zoom out the image and take a copyrighted detail and be able to use it as a separate photo. I'm pointing out that you could do that also with the images listed in the guideline as images for which you can apply de minimis, so that it's clearly not the way in which you decide if de minimis can be applied or not. But whatever, if you want to hear that I agreed with you when I said the opposite, so be it. Friniate (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Per the guideline "Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis." Now would say that the "overall subject-matter" of the photograph is simply a single statue, or maybe the whole display including the paintings? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, when you said "You seem to be mixing de minimis with something not being the main subjec of the photograph" I was in fact right, good. Anyway, yes, I'm arguing that the inclusion of the paintings is just incidental, otherwise I wouldn't have said that it should be kept. Friniate (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Per the guideline "Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis." Now would say that the "overall subject-matter" of the photograph is simply a single statue, or maybe the whole display including the paintings? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it does not and you perfectly know that. You are saying that de minimis can not be applied if you can zoom out the image and take a copyrighted detail and be able to use it as a separate photo. I'm pointing out that you could do that also with the images listed in the guideline as images for which you can apply de minimis, so that it's clearly not the way in which you decide if de minimis can be applied or not. But whatever, if you want to hear that I agreed with you when I said the opposite, so be it. Friniate (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I was mocking you by saying that what you qouted is exactly what I was saying. I'll not to agree with what you write if it triggers you that badly next time though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Actually it is you that couldn't provide any logical answer to my observations and decided to mock me, but whatever dude. Friniate (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, Friniate. All these conversations eventually devolve into you lobbing insults at me when its clear you don't have any actual argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, now you are just trolling. Friniate (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- As an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image Which is exactly what I'm saying people can do here. So what's your point except that you apparently agree with me that the paintings aren't De minimis since the details are clearly visible? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Where is it written that de minimis can't be applied if you can see a copyrighted object? In the images taken as an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image, so that it's clearly not the way how the guideline works. Friniate (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be mixing de minimis with something not being the main subjec of the photograph. They aren't the same thing or mutually exclusive. What matters is if someone can use the image to make a duplicate of the paintings, and they clearly can. Even without having to zoom into the photograph. Although the paintings are pretty clear if you zoom in. So there's no reason they would be de minimis as they clearly aren't a trivial part of the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly de minimis can be applied there. Friniate (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I don't really care about it either way, but no where did I say I nominated File:Cristo deposto-Angiolo del Santo.jpg for deletion because of the sculpture and it isn't the only thing in the image. There's also two paintings that are clearly modern and therefore probably copyrighted. Maybe actually look at the image next. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's under ToO anyway, there are hundreds of thousands of inscriptions like that. About the first image, well, to put in DR an image in PD is a clear error, so you shouldn't say that you don't care about it, but that you are sorry and that you'll pay more attention the next time. Friniate (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really care about the first image, but text can be copyrighted and in no way is a 12 line paragraph a "simple inscription." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: the text since it's not simple. From 1959, can be undeleted in 2055. Kept the window as an anonymous work from the 1920s. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann and Abalg: This one is not a satellite image, so I'm guessing it's not freely licensed? Also, I was unable to figure out how to get this particular map to show up in the Géoportail site. —holly {chat} 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It would be OK if from before 1953 (quite possible), but the date is not mentioned. @Phylog: Une idée ? Yann (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann and Abalg: This one is not a satellite image, so I'm guessing it's not freely licensed? Also, I was unable to figure out how to get this particular map to show up in the Géoportail site. —holly {chat} 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The uploader did not give sufficient evidence that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence, per COM:EVID. Therefore the file has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Matitone in Genoa
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is too recent (1992) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Genova - Matitone da via dino col.jpg
- File:Genova, matitone 01.JPG
- File:Genova, matitone 02.JPG
- File:Genova-Matitone.jpg
Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Matitone in Genoa
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about the architects of this building, Mario Lanata and Andrea Messina, they clearly haven't died for 70 years yet since it was built in 1992. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date.
- File:"Matitone" Genova.jpg
- File:Genoa 5.jpg
- File:Genoa, Italy - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Genova - Via Milano E sopraelevata Aldo Moro - panoramio.jpg
- File:Genova Lanterna Vista Panoramica su il Matitone 2.jpg
- File:Genova Porto Matitone Lantern.jpg
- File:Genova-Terminal traghetti-IMG 0295.JPG
- File:La Lanterna e la sua luce.jpg
- File:Lanterna di Genova dalla mia camera da letto.jpg
- File:Lanterna di Genova Italia.jpg
- File:Panorama di Genova (Matitone).jpg
- File:Porto Genova (15).JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0030.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0036.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0127.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0139.JPG
- File:Porto Genova 0191.JPG
- File:Porto Genova-DSCF1535.JPG
- File:Porto Genova-DSCF1539.JPG
- File:Work.4950766.1.flat,800x800,070,f.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Genova-Terminal traghetti-IMG 0295.JPG, File:Porto Genova (15).JPG, File:Porto Genova 0030.JPG, File:Porto Genova 0127.JPG, File:Porto Genova 0139.JPG, File:Porto Genova 0191.JPG, per Commons:De minimis, since the building is either hidden by the light or it occupies only a small portion of the photos of the harbour.--Friniate (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think your confusing something not being the main subject of the photograph with it being de minimis. They aren't the same thing. In this case the images can be "of the harbor" and the building can still be prominent enough for the photographs to be copyrightable. The building is the main feature of most those images regardless though. The only one where that might not be the case is File:Porto Genova 0127.JPG but then the other buildings are probably copyrighted anyway. So it doesn't really matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Except that de minimis is precisely about what is the overall subject of the photograph: ""Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis."" Friniate (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think your confusing something not being the main subject of the photograph with it being de minimis. They aren't the same thing. In this case the images can be "of the harbor" and the building can still be prominent enough for the photographs to be copyrightable. The building is the main feature of most those images regardless though. The only one where that might not be the case is File:Porto Genova 0127.JPG but then the other buildings are probably copyrighted anyway. So it doesn't really matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the ones where the building takes up too much space and is the intended subject of the photograph. I kept ones where it is either not the main subject and whose inclusion is incidental or unavoidable. I cropped a few to rid of the oversized building, and I deleted one that also had COM:DW issues with the Looney Tunes characters as well. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Alberto Alpago Novello, died in 1985. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2056.
- File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 01.jpg
- File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 02.jpg
- File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 03.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 01.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 02.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 03.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 04.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 05.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 06.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 07.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 08.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 09.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 10.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 11.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 12.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 13.jpg
- File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 14.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for sure File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 02.jpg, File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 03.jpg, File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 03.jpg since they depict the bell tower which was only restored in 1922, but it's still the building built in the XVIIIth century probably by it:Andrea Sansovino. Keep File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 13.jpg, File:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 2022 14.jpg per Commons:De minimis since they show only small parts of the church. But I'm inclined to Keep all the images, since as you can read here it was not an original project by Novello, he simply suprvised the reconstruction of the church destroyed in WWI, but it was rebuilt exactly as it was before the war, so I can't really see a copyright here (except for the copyright of the original architect who lived in the XVIIth century).--Friniate (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I could be thinking of a different church, but I thought there were differences when I compared images of the original with the "reconstructed" version. Just because he "supervised the reconstruction" doesn't necessarily mean it's a 1/1 recreation or that he didn't have anything to do with the new design regardless though. At the end of the day he's credited as the architect. So he was clearly more involved in the project then just standing on the sidelines and nodding his head in approval or whatever. Not to say he designed the whole thing from scratch either, but that's not really the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- In the source it's clearly written that it was a 1/1 reconstruction, do you have sources that say that it wasn't? Friniate (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source says "the current church was rebuilt in fundamentals, as it was and where the old one was, under the direction of the architect. A. Alpago Novello, in 1922." Maybe it's a difference in meaning between languages but at least in English something being "fundamentally" based on something else doesn't mean its a 1/1 recreation of that thing. Only that they share the same core attributes, but there can still be major differences. Like if I were to write a book that's "fundamentally" based on The Lord of the Rings that doesn't mean I literally wrote an exact 1/1 copy of it. Just that it was based on some core ideas in the book. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's latin, "a fundamentis", it means "from the foundations", it only means that no part of the previous church was standing and that they had to completely rebuild it. Friniate (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it means "from the basics", which I think is totally in alignment with what I said that it doesn't mean the building is necessarily a 1/1 recreation of the original. Just that it's based on the basics of the original building. That could mean literally anything though. Otherwise there should at least be an image of the original so we can compare them and see how similar they are. There's zero evidence that "from the basics" means the new building is an exact, 1/1 recreation of the original though. But I'm more then willing to retract this if you can find an image of the original and they are close enough in design to justify it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- But immediately after that expression is clearly written that it actually is a 1/1 recreation of the original. Friniate (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what it sounds like its saying to me. But whatever. The closing admin can read it and decide for themselves. Although it still be helpful if there was an image of the original that we could compare the new building to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It says literally that it was rebuilt "as it was and where it was the old one". I could find only photos of the church during WWI, as it was half and then completely destroyed, so they don't tell much. Friniate (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I said I'm fine leaving it up to the closing administrator. So it would be cool if you stopped arguing about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just providing the translation of what it's written, since the administrator may not understand italian, relax man. Friniate (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I said I'm fine leaving it up to the closing administrator. So it would be cool if you stopped arguing about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It says literally that it was rebuilt "as it was and where it was the old one". I could find only photos of the church during WWI, as it was half and then completely destroyed, so they don't tell much. Friniate (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what it sounds like its saying to me. But whatever. The closing admin can read it and decide for themselves. Although it still be helpful if there was an image of the original that we could compare the new building to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- But immediately after that expression is clearly written that it actually is a 1/1 recreation of the original. Friniate (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it means "from the basics", which I think is totally in alignment with what I said that it doesn't mean the building is necessarily a 1/1 recreation of the original. Just that it's based on the basics of the original building. That could mean literally anything though. Otherwise there should at least be an image of the original so we can compare them and see how similar they are. There's zero evidence that "from the basics" means the new building is an exact, 1/1 recreation of the original though. But I'm more then willing to retract this if you can find an image of the original and they are close enough in design to justify it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's latin, "a fundamentis", it means "from the foundations", it only means that no part of the previous church was standing and that they had to completely rebuild it. Friniate (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source says "the current church was rebuilt in fundamentals, as it was and where the old one was, under the direction of the architect. A. Alpago Novello, in 1922." Maybe it's a difference in meaning between languages but at least in English something being "fundamentally" based on something else doesn't mean its a 1/1 recreation of that thing. Only that they share the same core attributes, but there can still be major differences. Like if I were to write a book that's "fundamentally" based on The Lord of the Rings that doesn't mean I literally wrote an exact 1/1 copy of it. Just that it was based on some core ideas in the book. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- In the source it's clearly written that it was a 1/1 reconstruction, do you have sources that say that it wasn't? Friniate (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I could be thinking of a different church, but I thought there were differences when I compared images of the original with the "reconstructed" version. Just because he "supervised the reconstruction" doesn't necessarily mean it's a 1/1 recreation or that he didn't have anything to do with the new design regardless though. At the end of the day he's credited as the architect. So he was clearly more involved in the project then just standing on the sidelines and nodding his head in approval or whatever. Not to say he designed the whole thing from scratch either, but that's not really the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- In Italy, many buildings were destroyed during both the world wars, even historical ones. They were rebuilt with the aim of restore their previous aspect as much as possible. This is the case also for this church. I think we can keep all the pictures that do not reproduce in high resolution details of new artworks (mosaics, paintings, etc.), realised in the new building to substitute corresponding destroyed ones. In this case, we can Keep most of the pictures in the category.--Harlock81 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Keep here, but I'll leave it up to a more experienced administrator here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Based on the discussion above, while comparing the recent tower of File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia) 02.jpg with this old image, https://www.prolocosernaglia.it/index.php/chiese/ , imho the design is the same. The rebuilt tower has the same design of the columns, the horizontal divisions are the same, as are the semi-circles on top. I assume the architect did the same with the actual church building. So imho the architect (or the heirs) cannot claim he made a new design, perhaps a derivative work in some details. Therefore the images can be kept. Thanks to all for your contributions. --Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)