Commons:Deletion requests/File:HPR1000, reactor coolant system.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by ChNPP as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: The paper, linked as source, is licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND, not CC-BY-SA. See abstract section in the pdf-file-version. CC-BY-ND in the PDF, but CC-BY in the website: thoughts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: If you look at the non-PDF version (ie the source link), about 10 lines down it says "Under a Creative Commons license Open access", and the word "license" is linked to the "Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)" page:
- It rather looks like this is the license I (uploader) used (cc-by-4.0), not noticing the PDF version said CC-BY-NC-ND. So we could rectify this by taking a copy from the non-PDF version of the article, which appears to be image bit-identical (or at least exact same 738 × 817 size) as the image in the PDF, though it does have some basic EXIF as extra, ie:
- I'm happy to do that if it resolves this problem. Rwendland (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I have contacted Elsevier about this issue, they now forwarding the contrary licensing to another team and checking what license is the correct one. They get back on me when they receive a response and resolve the problem. Best regards ChNPP (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, wait to see what Elsevier say. I've taken the precaution of archiving the non-PDF version to record their CC BY 4.0 release, and downloaded the images from there, as if we don't get something sensible back I think we would be entitled to take that release at face value. Rwendland (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also archived in the Wayback Machine. Brianjd (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, wait to see what Elsevier say. I've taken the precaution of archiving the non-PDF version to record their CC BY 4.0 release, and downloaded the images from there, as if we don't get something sensible back I think we would be entitled to take that release at face value. Rwendland (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I have contacted Elsevier about this issue, they now forwarding the contrary licensing to another team and checking what license is the correct one. They get back on me when they receive a response and resolve the problem. Best regards ChNPP (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
