Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/30
June 30
editDeseo eliminar todo el contenido de mi cuenta Sheyla Sandra Tello Rojas (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Fake map no source Gharouni (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PORN and COM:ADVERT see user page Clausinho (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this user’s files have been nominated for deletion so many times the mainstream media is covering it. I don’t think posting a link to one’s social media is automatically an advertisement, and the file itself is high quality and in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those are 8 minutes of straight up porn no matter how you spin it, there isn't even any educational value nor evidence the woman was actually virgin, which invalidates the premise of the video. Bubu93 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence are the actors supposed to supply that the woman is a virgin? That’s a nonsense argument Dronebogus (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those are 8 minutes of straight up porn no matter how you spin it, there isn't even any educational value nor evidence the woman was actually virgin, which invalidates the premise of the video. Bubu93 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PORN does say Commons isn't an amateur porn site... Adsci8 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This was made by someone who makes porn for money and is competently made, so I’d say it fits the definition of “professional” if we’re comparing it to typical user exhibitionism. Dronebogus (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Professional porn worker still virgin at the time of this recording? Interesting... I adhere to deletion supporters, amateur junk. 186.173.249.19 01:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Look, people complain about amateur porn, then flip around and complain about professional porn… this is a very stupid and weird thing we’re debating. Who cares if it meaningfully represents the claimed subject? Files by this user have been nominated many times in the past and the vast majority appear to have been kept; precedent exists here. Why not ask the uploader, who is actually communicative and responsible unlike most driveby dick pic uploaders? Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Professional porn worker still virgin at the time of this recording? Interesting... I adhere to deletion supporters, amateur junk. 186.173.249.19 01:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This was made by someone who makes porn for money and is competently made, so I’d say it fits the definition of “professional” if we’re comparing it to typical user exhibitionism. Dronebogus (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted logo A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Charles svb (talk · contribs)
editall other uploads of account have been deleted. These seem likely to have been overlooked. The account seems to have been abondened on wn.wp. Umlikely [own] work. COPYVIO
C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Varying quality and sizes, I've just deleted 3 "own work" as copyvios per their respective DRs. No reason to believe these are own work as well.
- File:Yellow Flower Cloud Tip.png
- File:Roulong.png
- File:Ice capped roses in Harbin.jpg
- File:Saint Sophia Cathedral, Harbin.jpg
- File:Harbin Ice and Snow World Snow Sculpture.jpg
- File:Harbin Bingtanghulu.jpg
- File:Sichuan Maocai, China.jpg
- File:Chinese baozi.jpg
- File:Chinese BBQ.jpg
- File:Chinese New Year paper money(中国山东过年烧纸).jpg
- File:A group of Northeast tigers sleeping comfortably under trees(树下惬意睡觉的东北虎群).jpg
- File:青岛湾夜景 (cropped).jpg
- File:The sign of May Fourth Square.jpg
- File:Zhanshan Temple Plain Noodles.jpg
- File:Qingdao beer.jpg
- File:Making delicious food.jpg
- File:Qingdao Beer Festival West Coast Venue.jpg
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ese pide eliminar porque el archivo no es de carácter educativo y actualmente se está usando la foto para dañar la imagen de la persona Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Se solicita la baja del archivo {{speedydelete|imagen privada no educativa}} Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- This looks like an F10, doesn't it? 186.173.249.19 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cortar la foto en dos, guardar la parte de la señora y borrar la parte de este joven (original upload) por favor. 186.173.153.60 11:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
El archivo no es de carácter educativo ni contribuye a la generación de conocimiento Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Proceed as I proposed above with a similar file. 186.173.153.60 11:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Non inédit (https://lepouce.info/tal-de-retour-sur-scene-avec-un-nouveau-nom/) et marqué comme "travail personnel" Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
A 1957 photograph that is unlikely to be the own work of the person running the Flickr stream. There is no explanation on the Flickr stream of how else he would be the copyright holder. We would doubt this as an own work claim if it were uploaded locally to begin with, so I think we should apply the same standards to it as a Flickr image. May be PD for other reasons, but without accurate provenance this is very hard to verify. Its first online publication seems to be on the blog of the Flickr stream owner in 2009, where unfortunately questions about the image went unanswered. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not being the copyright holder of that image would be very serious if that were true, so please confirm if that is officially the case. Otherwise, I'd assume good faith. It's not impossible that the person is the copyright holder, afterall. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not impossible, but still implausible. It will not be his own work, since he is unlikely even to have been alive in 1957, and the Walt Disney company itself featured it on their own website here. To me, this rises to significant doubt. I find it easier to assess such claims when made by users directly on Commons, since there at least uploaders have to commit to ẃhy they own the copyright: it being their own work, or inherited, etc., and thus it is easier to assess the plausibility of that particular claim. Felix QW (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it is indeed an image taken by the Walt Disney Company, have you seen any instance of a copyright notice? Per this link from Cornell University [1], any image taken between 1929 and 1977 (this attraction only operated between 1957 and 1958 before being immediately replaced by other Disneyland attractions) without a copyright notice would put it in the public domain. Disney is usually very good about pairing copyright notices with every image it showcases, and if the source you provided is an official Disney source, and given that there is no copyright notice on the image itself, that in fact proves that they overlooked adding a notice to this specific image. In this instance, we would simply change the license tag to public domain on Commons. Side note: this reminds me of the wealth of Wikipedia featured articles for classic movies that get away with having screenshots from the movies in the articles by taking those screenshots from the trailers for the movie, which in the past were overlooked in terms of copyrighting. Jackdude101 talk cont 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is longstanding practice here at Commons only to accept {{PD-US-no-notice}} claims where we have actual proof of a physical 1929-1977 copy of the image without a notice. The online publication from Disney itself is from long after 1977 and therefore does not require a notice in the first place. In this case, we have no idea about its publication history at all. It may very well have only been published in some magazine or other, where it would have been covered by a central copyright notice for the whole magazine. Felix QW (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it is indeed an image taken by the Walt Disney Company, have you seen any instance of a copyright notice? Per this link from Cornell University [1], any image taken between 1929 and 1977 (this attraction only operated between 1957 and 1958 before being immediately replaced by other Disneyland attractions) without a copyright notice would put it in the public domain. Disney is usually very good about pairing copyright notices with every image it showcases, and if the source you provided is an official Disney source, and given that there is no copyright notice on the image itself, that in fact proves that they overlooked adding a notice to this specific image. In this instance, we would simply change the license tag to public domain on Commons. Side note: this reminds me of the wealth of Wikipedia featured articles for classic movies that get away with having screenshots from the movies in the articles by taking those screenshots from the trailers for the movie, which in the past were overlooked in terms of copyrighting. Jackdude101 talk cont 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not impossible, but still implausible. It will not be his own work, since he is unlikely even to have been alive in 1957, and the Walt Disney company itself featured it on their own website here. To me, this rises to significant doubt. I find it easier to assess such claims when made by users directly on Commons, since there at least uploaders have to commit to ẃhy they own the copyright: it being their own work, or inherited, etc., and thus it is easier to assess the plausibility of that particular claim. Felix QW (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Viewliner Train of Tomorrow
editThese images have been on Flickr as all rights reserved 5 years before they were uploaded here ([2] and [3]), so they should really need VRT confirmation to be kept.
Felix QW (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JocaZlatni (talk · contribs)
editvarying sizes and quality. multiple cameras, some with watermark. Doubtful own work
- File:Igor Radojcic.jpg
- File:Serbian referees.jpg
- File:Nikola Borovic.jpg
- File:Nikola Borovic kamp 2012.jpg
- File:Nikola Borovic and Milorad Mazic.jpg
- File:Stefan Stojanovic FK Obilic 02.jpg
- File:Stefan Stojanovic FK Obilic.jpg
- File:Stefan Stojanovic FK Obilic 03.jpg
- File:FK Obilić , Pavlović, Borović, Filipović.jpg
- File:FK Obilić , Nikola Borović.jpg
- File:Ognjen Blagojević , Nikola Borović , Nemanja Petrović.jpg
- File:Jovan Borović assistant referee.jpg
- File:Jovan Borović referee.jpg
- File:Jovan borovic assistant referee.jpg
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on the uploader's user name, the stated photographer (Niclas Mäkelä) is not the uploader so not own work. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Wiley and Sons publication by Dr Paul Gaugniuc that is shown in the first couple of frames. This probably refers to this Wiley book: Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation Felix QW (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.deafmos.ru/o-nas/ Copyrighted logo without educational use PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- No PD in Russia COM:TOO Russia --Drakosh (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Kortárs szobor nem szabadban kiállítva, így ez engedélyköteles a szobrász részéről. Addig Delete Yann (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Nem igazán értem, mit kell ezen megbeszélni. Nagy Imrét 1958-ban végezték ki, így nyilvánvaló, hogy a szobra is később készült. A politikai megítélése miatt is. 1958 óta sem telt el 70 év, így a szobor elkészítése óta sem telhetett el több, mint 70 év. A szobor -- láthatóan -- nem a szabadban van elhelyezve, így nem köztéri szobor és nem vonatkozik rá a FOP. Épületen belül elhelyezett kortárs szobrok fényképei engedélykötelesek. Szerintem ez nem olyasmi, ami vitatandó, mert a helyzet egyértelmű. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Kortárs szobor nem szabadban kiállítva, így ez engedélyköteles a szobrász részéről. Addig Delete Yann (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Nem igazán értem, mit kell ezen megbeszélni. Nagy Imrét 1958-ban végezték ki, így nyilvánvaló, hogy a szobra is később készült. A politikai megítélése miatt is. 1958 óta sem telt el 70 év, így a szobor elkészítése óta sem telhetett el több, mint 70 év. A szobor -- láthatóan -- nem a szabadban van elhelyezve, így nem köztéri szobor és nem vonatkozik rá a FOP. Épületen belül elhelyezett kortárs szobrok fényképei engedélykötelesek. Szerintem ez nem olyasmi, ami vitatandó, mert a helyzet egyértelmű . Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:TOO UK John123521 (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Palavangudi 186.173.153.60 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Person has not given permission for it to be posted here Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/968392727242333/posts/1571349036946696/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/968392727242333/posts/1565053087576291/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.reddit.com/r/heraldry/comments/en7kz2/the_attributed_arms_of_the_santo_ni%C3%B1o_de_cebu/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
1917 and "own work"... o no... Xocolatl (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Just fix instead of lazy deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Peeblesshire-Scotland.svg. Tweeddale is the name of a district in the Borders region 1975-1996, and sometimes used as a synonym for Peeblesshire. The official name of the county (c. 1304-1975), which has an area approximately the same size as the Tweeddale district area, is Peeblesshire. This map shows historic counties of Scotland. A map of the Tweeddale district is available here: File:Scotland_locator_map_of_Tweeddale_district_1975-1996.svg Elianfoo (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Blurry picture, superseded by File:Peter Doyle (author) 02.jpg, unlikely to be of any use Calistemon (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- As the person who took both: feel free to delete the earlier one. Both taken with a point-and-shoot that wasn't very good for low lighting, but was all I had at the time. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image.--Javidd (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No Scope and the user is blocked in en.wiki and ta.wiki due to socks ~AntanO4task (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Neither own work [4], nor seemingly under COM:TOO. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexey Yakovlev (talk · contribs)
editPaintings by Russian artist Vladimir Weisberg (1924-1985). His works are still copyrighted in Russia and the US.
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Fruits.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Shrub.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Masha Libedinskaya.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Shcheglov family.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Uncleaned table.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Nude N° 9.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Six cubes.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. White jug and plate on a towel.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Composition No. 8 “White Fugue”.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Actress.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Peonies.jpg
- File:Vladimir Weisberg. Nude.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
license not present on the site 91.80.65.92 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digitalworknow (talk · contribs)
editOut of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: an enormous, indiscriminate collection of unused, undescribed, and largely uncategorized or miscategorized nighttime photos of streets, buildings, parking lots, and building interiors in the Los Angeles region. A few of the photos are of posters or advertisements containing copyrighted images; most are just dark suburban streets.
Full disclosure: I haven't reviewed all of these images in detail; there's simply too many of them. But most of them are simply unremarkable, and they're all taken at night with a cell phone, so the image quality is fairly low, and there's just no educational use for most of these. Please let me know if there's anything that looks potentially usable in here.
Omphalographer (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we start mass deleting here we also would need to delete much more. Many of the files could be useful if identified and are also easily identifiable for people with local knowledge. Therefor Keep in this request and make individual requests for the really unusable ones and the ones with copyright concerns. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the vast majority of these photos aren't of anything in particular; even if we knew where they were taken, there just isn't anything meaningful in frame to identify. Picking five at random:
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230801 225012695 MP.jpg is the interior of a parking garage;
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230813 230431359.jpg is an unmarked commercial building, possibly the one at 3105 Sedona Ct, Ontario, CA (an utterly unremarkable low-rise office building);
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230814 224949042.jpg is a weird angle of a wood paneled surface;
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230826 004456275.jpg is a sidewalk curb cut near what looks like an empty field;
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230826 015637049.jpg is a mostly empty street with no buildings near enough to see.
- I'd love to be proven wrong but, as far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing useful here. Omphalographer (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I only agree with File:Inland Empire CA 20230814 224949042.jpg that it is not not usable. All other files are fine to illustrate the building or the street if identified especially if no photos of higher quality are available. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the vast majority of these photos aren't of anything in particular; even if we knew where they were taken, there just isn't anything meaningful in frame to identify. Picking five at random:
Kept: as no consensus for bulk deletion. (Note: I agree that probably most have little to no usefulness, but no one seems to be inclinded to sort through them all. No prejudging renomination of individual or subsets.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the US. The mural even has a copyright symbols, see File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010745589.jpg.
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010911091.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010906934.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010827569.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010823632.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010819669.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010810808.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010808065.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010804766.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010800513.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010745589.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010721455.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010718268.jpg
- File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010714920.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
One recent photo has been uploaded for Justice Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain. This old photo always comes to google search page whereas the new photo does not apprear. So , this old photo creates a confusion. Would you please delete this photo as soon as possible? Msaklainmorshed (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a validly licenced image, confusion at Google is not Commons' concern. Newly uploaded images take a while before they appear on Google, if the new one is more commonly used on Wikipedia it will likely become the dominant one on Google eventually. Belbury (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
this artwork of Mickey is definitely copyrighted. Undelete 96 years after creation in 2109. SDudley (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The Mickey art is definitely copyrighted. Undelete in 2113. SDudley (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Wrong country names 89.210.189.77 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Not a valid deletion reason. "Wrong country names"? What is wrong with the designations? Can you explain that? --Ras67 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The map contains disputable/erroneous country names that may confuse the readership of Wikipedia. Specifically, in 1999, the country listed as "MACEDONIA" had the official name of "FYROM" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia). As the map is dated in 2010, it violates international naming laws (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute), and requires proper and prompt revisions.
Given the sensitivity of the matter, the fact that even the current official name of the country is different (i.e., "Republic of North Macedonia"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia), and aiming to avoid misinforming (or even provoking) the general public and creating confusion with the Greek geographic and administrative unit of "Macedonia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece) ), I would suggest that the image is deleted or replaced with an accurate version as soon as possible.
CptJeliro (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The map contains disputable/erroneous country names that may confuse the readership of Wikipedia. Specifically, in 2001, the country listed as "MACEDONIA" had the official name of "FYROM" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia). As the map is recent, it violates international naming laws (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute), and requires proper and prompt revisions.
Given the sensitivity of the matter, the fact that even the current official name of the country is different (i.e., "Republic of North Macedonia"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia), and aiming to avoid misinforming (or even provoking) the general public and creating confusion with the Greek geographic and administrative unit of "Macedonia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece) ), I would suggest that the image is deleted or replaced with an accurate version as soon as possible. CptJeliro (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored--Trade (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep FYROM was never the official constitutional name of the state, it was just a designator used in some international contexts. There's no need to qualify it because Greek Macedonia is not listed on the map. Either way, neither is a criteria for deletion anyway. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of a higher quality map: File:1861 SUTHERLANDSHIRE.jpg Elianfoo (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of Deltapark Neeltje Jans
edit- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 01.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 02.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 03.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 04.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 05.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 06.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 07.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 08.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 09.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 10.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 11.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 12.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 13.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 14.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 15.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 16.jpg
- File:Delta Expo Deltapark Neeltje Jans 17.jpg
Photographs of an exhibit at Deltapark Neeltje Jans. Neither theme parks nor museums (whichever you want to qualify these as) are covered by Dutch FoP. --185.161.203.104 18:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of Cultuurforum Aardenburg
edit- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 06.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 07.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 08.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 09.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 10.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 11.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 12.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 13.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 14.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 15.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 16.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 17.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 18.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 19.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 20.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 21.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 22.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 23.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 24.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 25.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 26.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 27.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 28.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 29.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 30.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 31.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 32.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 33.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 34.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 36.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 37.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 38.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 39.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 40.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 41.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 42.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 43.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 45.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 46.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 48.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 50.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 52.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 53.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 54.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 55.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 59.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 60.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 62.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 63.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 64.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 65.jpg
- File:Cultuurforum Aardenburg 66.jpg
Museum interiors are not covered by Belgium's FoP laws. Photos where the focus are the graphics/text/layout of the exhibit were tagged, photos focused on old museum pieces (44, 51, 56, among others) were not. --185.161.203.104 19:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Maurice Grosser passed away in 1986, not out of copyright Nutshinou Talk! 19:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Wie alle Wappen der Woltersdorf-Gruppe handelt es sich hierbei um eine Erfindung eines Vereins. Out of scope GerritR (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The image contains a signature of Bart Verhaeghe's wife, while this was uploaded by a communication employee who claims it to be her work. Given that another image of his is also a copyright infringement, I suspect this one to be as well. Dajasj (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
No permission from given author Ann De Kelver - stated is in Duch that this imag has been given to the uploader only Hoyanova (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Hoyanova. I was contacted by the photogapher herself to add this recent photo to the page of Bart Verhaeghe. I have a 100% authorization to publish this picture. DeVosJan (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DeVosJan, could you follow the steps of nl:Wikipedia:Contactpunt/Toestemming voor gebruik afbeelding vragen to verify this? Important to note that you not only posted it on the page of Bart Verhaeghe, but also provided a license which means it can also be used outside Wikipedia. Dajasj (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Artwork by Andy Warhol (1928-1987) on display in Tate Modern gallery in London. Notice that although the UK has freedom of panorama, it doesn't include 2D artworks. The year of creation / publication is not given, so I'm not certain of the correct date of undeletion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete From 1976 per [5]. Undelete in 2072 per COM:HIRTLE. --Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Dubious Creative Commons license: originally taken from an external non-free website [6], then the source link removed and an OTRS tag added by a user, who isn’t an OTRS member. 188.123.231.24 20:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- OTRS was specified on the file page. See the page and discussion: [7]. --Poltavski (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- What does yesterday's discussion on the Russian Wikipedia have to do with the weird actions a few years ago on the Serbian one? --188.123.231.24 07:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read and it will become clear. --Poltavski (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- For your information: I asked the author of the photo publication Miloslav Samardzic about the legal status of the image. I will inform you about the result additionally. --Poltavski (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mr. Samardzic gave a permission in his response to my request on his Facebook page. You can read it at the link --Poltavski (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- How old is your Mr. Samardzic to be able to make photos in 1942? Quick1984 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read Samardzic's article, everything is written there clearly. --Poltavski (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Poltavski: First of all, please refrain from constantly sending me to go somewhere and read something: according to COM:EVID policy, it is you who must provide evidence of the possibility to upload images on Commons. And well, if one still read this text, it is all the more obvious that this Mr. Samardzic has absolutely no rights to determine the licensing status of these photographs, since he is neither their author nor their proper copyright holder. Quick1984 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I definitely won't communicate with you. --Poltavski (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is this all the evidence you can give? Quick1984 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I definitely won't communicate with you. --Poltavski (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Poltavski: First of all, please refrain from constantly sending me to go somewhere and read something: according to COM:EVID policy, it is you who must provide evidence of the possibility to upload images on Commons. And well, if one still read this text, it is all the more obvious that this Mr. Samardzic has absolutely no rights to determine the licensing status of these photographs, since he is neither their author nor their proper copyright holder. Quick1984 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this fall under public domain anyway? (see {{PD-Yugoslavia}}). Ђидо (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you suppose that the photo of year 1942 could have been published before 1941 or it's author has been died before 1941? As for the other PD templates we still need to clarify the date of first publication. Quick1984 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read Samardzic's article, everything is written there clearly. --Poltavski (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- How old is your Mr. Samardzic to be able to make photos in 1942? Quick1984 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mr. Samardzic gave a permission in his response to my request on his Facebook page. You can read it at the link --Poltavski (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- What does yesterday's discussion on the Russian Wikipedia have to do with the weird actions a few years ago on the Serbian one? --188.123.231.24 07:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free photo. 188.123.231.24 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The uploader has made their own logo for this book series. I assume this is misleading or at least out of scope, but I haven't found any guidance on what to do in these cases, if anything.
Sinigh (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Not own work Necatorina (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Not own work Necatorina (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:St. Fronleichnam (Aachen)
editThe architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.
- File:Aachen - Fronleichnam - Rudolf Schwarz Entwurf - Innenraum.jpg
- File:Aachen Fronleichnamskirche Innenraum.jpg
- File:Aachen Fronleichnamskirche Kanzel und Orgel.jpg
- File:Aachen Fronleichnamskirche Orgel.jpg
- File:St fronleichnam 03.JPG
- File:St fronleichnam 04.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A large box-shaped room without any substantively creative details and thus below the threshold of originality. This is a de minimis portion of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- See the windows and the play of light, the linear "chandelier" hanging from the ceiling, then the dark-bright contrast created from the black marble and white walls. There are no stained glass windows as it is often the case in churches. Also the chancel in the middle of the church is different than the traditional ones, with straight stairs leading to the chancel, than a spiraled one. The church is from 1928, at the time that was pretty revolutionary, it is seen as one of the first churches with modern architecture in Germany. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Innenansicht) (1).jpg
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Innenansicht) (2).jpg
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Innenansicht) (3).jpg
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Innenansicht) (4).jpg
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Seifert-Orgel) (5).jpg
- File:Köln-Braunsfeld, St. Joseph (Seifert-Orgel) (6).jpg
- File:St. Joseph (Köln-Braunsfeld) (5).jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (1).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (2).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (4).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (5).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (6).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (7).jpg
- File:Köln-Mülheim, Liebfrauenkirche (Innenraum) (9).jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.
- File:2022-01-10-Krippe Mechternkirche-1.jpg
- File:2022-01-10-Mechternkirche.jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (1).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (10).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (11).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (2).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (3).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (4).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (7).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Innenansicht) (8).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Seifert-Orgel) (7).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Seifert-Orgel) (8).jpg
- File:Köln-Ehrenfeld, St. Mechtern (Seifert-Orgel) (9).jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.
- File:20110603Maria Koenigin Saarbruecken2.jpg
- File:20120202Maria Koenigin Saarbruecken1.jpg
- File:Mariakoenigin.jpg
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 01.JPG
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 02.JPG
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 03.JPG
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 04.JPG
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 05.JPG
- File:Saarbrücken Maria Königin Innen 06.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
File created for the sole purpose of vandalism on enwiki. 100.6.103.250 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright (PD-Thailand), This is a photographic work ... and at least 50 years have elapsed since its first publication but this photo create 1978 Asdavdh (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It was. My mistake i eanted to be famous Etia70 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)