Commons:Deletion requests/File:DemoBIH2006a.png
Source???Tonka (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Amada44 (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'd translate this file from File:DemoBIH2006a.PNG, in english Wikipedia, but now this image was deleted, I don't know because. --Goldorak (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems it has never existed(if it had, there would be a message with the reason for deletion). --GaAs11671 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)- OK, this is DemoBIH2006.PNG (without the "a"): 21:38, 29 December 2006 Electionworld (talk | contribs) deleted "File:DemoBIH2006.PNG" (Moved to commons). The image on commons has also be deleted: 5 juin 2008 à 19:39 Siebrand (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « File:DemoBIH2006.PNG » (Dupe of Image:DemoBIH2006a.png). An admin could bring back the original description. Keep --GaAs11671 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm an admin on en-wiki. The deleted page said:
- == Summary ==
- Taken from Serbian Wikipedia, the Republika Srpska article. It was created by a Serbian user based on various statistical data.
- There are some inaccuracies in the map (borders of Brčko district, etc.)
- == Licensing ==
- {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
So source wasn't quite clear on en-wiki, either, but might be on the Serbian Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It gives 5 janvier 2007 à 00:11 Саша Стефановић a supprimé « Слика:DemoBIH2006.PNG » (Има на остави под истим именом) (automatic translation: It has to leave under the same name). We should not delete files before ensuring the derivatives are correctly described. :( --GaAs11671 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- LoL, that automatic translation isn't ok. That is template for "File exist on commons under same name". This is file description on sr: wiki before was deleted because being duplicate. Licence was {{PD}} and author is "Varjacic Vladimir"
Autor varjačić Vladimir, podaci po proceni federelnog zavoda za statistiku, Distikt Brčko je uzet po dejtonskoj podeli iako je jedna celina da bi se video sastav stanovništva po sastavnim delovima. podaci su po aktuelnoj teritorijalnoj organizaciji 2006. godine.
{{PD}}
I deleted it just because being duplicate on sr: wiki. Саша Стефановић (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Duplicates of duplicates all deleted, and at the end just stays the duplicate duplicate duplicate duplicate whith no credible license info, and everything is deleted. :( --GaAs11671 21:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This file was improperly transfered to wikimedia. I am asking that the file gets deleted so that it could be properly transfered from the serbian wikipedia. That way the file can show the original source and attribution. If you look at the source of this file you can see that there is indeed a significant amount of confusion going on, particularily in regards to the fact that several version have been uploaded ,and then against the copyright have been changed and altered over and over by careless users. Lilic (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, we had this discussion, and you continue edit war ?
It was a file under open licence. I corrected municipal borders, and national percenages. Shouldn't you stop already? You were told that you are wrong, countless timess... --Čeha (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The file was improperly transferred to wikimedia commons, and it should be transferred properly. Hence this should be deleted, and the original should be transferred. I see nothing controversial here. This file is a derivative of a derivative, hence that is not proper. (Lilic (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)).
- No, this is newer edition of original under wikipedia open license which permited such change. Original is different map from this. It has errors. I am certain that you are capable of understanding this. --Čeha (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded and re-uploaded so many times that the licensing was wrong. Furthermore, the author never uploads anything under such licenses. To top things off, the correct/incorrect matter of the map is not an issue here at all. I disagree with your statement that the map is not correct, and I will leave it at that, because quite frankly such opinions are not relevant to the issue at hand. (Lilic (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)).
Kept, I read carefully both conversations and I decided to keep it, because I tend to believe, that the file is licensed correctly. If the file was transferred from sr.wiki into en.wiki, then it was claimed, that the file consists errors, and Čeha said the same, so probably this is true. Čeha said, that he corrected errors, and I believe that also. So I keep the file and revert it into Čeha's version.
Sorry, there was also third discussion on file talk page. I trust Penyulap and therefore I do not revert the file. Let the current version be. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Under Penyulap, there was a consensus which hadn't been kept (Lilic nominated that map for deletion, and I didn't see nomination for deletion). As I said (and documented) current map is more correct than previous....--Čeha (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This image is too similar to this image: [1] , and it is not the first time that such an image has been deleted. I would refer to this: [2] , cheers. (Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006.PNG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png){kind=link}
Kept, although the files are similar, there are multiple differences. Commons has enough room for both. The request qualifies for speedy keep, because the file is used (and proposed replacement is used too). Lilic, please do not nominate the file for deletion anymore. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
