Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/09
May 9
[edit]{{Duplicate|Flag of Tanintharyi Region (2010-2021).svg}} Lthar854 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, images are not really duplicates. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krashaon19 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: -g7 Yann (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Properly licensed and we are past courtesy deletion period. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment This image duplicates File:Match at The Belvoir Castle Ground in Twerton, 1913.jpg and File:Bath City at The Belvoir Castle Ground in 1914.jpg. It needs to be determined which one has the correct information (1913 or 1914, probably 1913. The 1913 jpg has slightly better contrast.) and then the incorrect versions can be deleted. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's totally unnecessary, as it's trivially easy to copy and paste the correct information from one file page to the other, nor is renaming a problem. That applies to different file types. If one JPG is clearly superior to another, that's another question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was just pointing out that there is conflicting information out there about what's in the photograph that needs to be resolved. I can't access the provided source to see what it should be. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's totally unnecessary, as it's trivially easy to copy and paste the correct information from one file page to the other, nor is renaming a problem. That applies to different file types. If one JPG is clearly superior to another, that's another question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality duplicate, if it cannot be merged it should be deleted as it bloats the Wikimedia library Bathwelshman19 (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The image is extremely poor quality and has been edited considerably, as I have been told by the up-loader. Bloats commons and should be deleted. Bathwelshman19 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Ложные сведения об авторстве и дате съемки: объект умер в сентябре 2023; фото из семейного архива, автор неизвестен, свободной лицензии нет. -- Tomasina (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Innacruate League performance which is misleading to viewers. The creator has since made an accurate graph dating from 1979-present, as Bath joined the English football pyramid system in 1979. Bath City were never in tier 4 and the entire section of the chart previous to this date is wrong. The graph illustrates nothing but inaccurate information, and thus should be deleted as quickly as possible. Bathwelshman19 (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep"Wrong" and "inaccurate" depends on your interpretation of the quality of the Southern League compared to the Third Division prior to 1958. Was it on par with the Third Division? Did it (along with the Northern, Western, and Midland Leagues) constitute an unofficial regional fourth tier immediately below the Football League? I am fine with going along with a consensus of WikiProject Football on the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EclecticArkie (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
no evidence that the image is free from copyright? DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". See for instance https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3031819283707848&set=a.1878209569068831&paipv=0&eav=AfacAF4C4n1mGoDb_vQbocCLN3vrSPT9qyDFApg1DPQD5ZOMBU884QxdiH9GsB4-XcU Py4nf (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Logotipo de uma empresa privada. Esta marca não deveria estar aqui. Liutecristian (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no metro in Saratov. Sigwald (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Katasterplan-Ausschnitt wird nicht mehr gebraucht, da er von mir durch einen besseren Plan ersetzt wurde. Foxxy199 (Foxy5) (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Higher resolution version available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turner,_Alberta_1916.jpg Bixly777 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Unused on any actual articles, and superseded by superior SVG version. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like wrong license. "news reports on events and facts, which have a purely informational character"? Should every photo be regarded as such? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
File:The works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, Marquis of Normanby, and Duke of Buckingham Fleuron T086931-4.png
[edit]better version at File:The works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, Marquis of Normanby, and Duke of Buckingham Fleuron T086946-18.png F (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let's turn this into a redirect to that better version. I agree there is no reason anyone would prefer this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The source gives the impression that this image was added so as to sell related merchandise. StefenTower (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, this image was made to supersede an existing, adequate image for the use in a couple Wikipedia articles. Therefore, it was unnecessary to create. StefenTower (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change the file to this image in the original file
Tgbsww (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- File overwriting not allowed Tgbsww (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- My point is why do we need to? The original was acceptable for its narrow use. It didn't need to be displayed as a large image anywhere. And it's probably mislabeled as "public domain" in both cases, but that's a separate matter. StefenTower (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think we need more high-quality PNG images of some flags, as it can be much easier to vectorize if need be. IndysNotHere (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a useful thought, but going back to whether this is actually public domain or not, if it's not, we may be going beyond fair use to maintain a high-quality, high-res version. StefenTower (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think we need more high-quality PNG images of some flags, as it can be much easier to vectorize if need be. IndysNotHere (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- My point is why do we need to? The original was acceptable for its narrow use. It didn't need to be displayed as a large image anywhere. And it's probably mislabeled as "public domain" in both cases, but that's a separate matter. StefenTower (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- File overwriting not allowed Tgbsww (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change the file to this image in the original file
COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Innecesario, fue actualizado ChileanPolitiks (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Siehe auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadeln_(F%C3%BCrth)#Wappen - Erst vor wenigen Jahren aktualisiert und somit nicht historisch. Sehr wahrscheinlich kein "eigenes Werk". Weil es nicht offiziell ist, zieht Urheberrecht. GerritR (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Siehe verlinkten Artikel, für den gerade ein Löschantrag läuft: Out of scope (Eigengewächs eines Vereins, keineswegs offiziell) und zudem urheberrechtlich problematisch. GerritR (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Das Wappen wurde vom Verschönerungsverein erstellt und ist laut diesem gemeinfrei. (Siehe: Hohe Wappenrolle von Woltersdorf, 2021, S. 32) Ich habe eine Version dieser Wappen für Wikipedia erstellt. Das Wappen wird in der Nachbarschaft verwendet und ist im Heimatmuseum einsehbar. Mehlitz (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Siehe verlinkten Artikel, für den gerade ein Löschantrag läuft: Out of scope (Eigengewächs eines Vereins, keineswegs offiziell) und zudem urheberrechtlich problematisch. GerritR (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Das Wappen wurde vom Verschönerungsverein erstellt und ist laut diesem gemeinfrei. (Siehe: Hohe Wappenrolle von Woltersdorf, 2021, S. 32) Ich habe eine Version dieser Wappen für Wikipedia erstellt. Das Wappen wird in der Nachbarschaft verwendet und ist im Heimatmuseum einsehbar. Mehlitz (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: no realistic educational value Headlock0225 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This file is an inferior version of c:File:Kentucky Presidential Election Results 1952.svg. Mad Mismagius (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
"Own work" from 2015 doubtful: Image subject died in 2010. 87.150.8.223 21:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Check out File:Twinks4Trump J in White.jpg. It is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0. My derivative is within the terms of that license. Zanahary (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=831824723#File:_Twinks4Trump_J_in_White_-_Hat_text_removed.png){kind=link}
An altered image from a set by Lucian Wintrich that was deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jvander22). Wintrich, to my knowledge, never released photos under free licenses. gobonobo + c 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weren’t all those photos uploaded by Wintrich himself? 173.77.183.96 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, look at the nom: the nominator doesn’t understand that Lucian Wintrich is the photographer, not the subject. 173.77.183.96 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- G8, marked for SPEEDY. 186.174.134.132 13:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even if Wintrich is Jvander22, there is no proof of this, so this should be deleted absent COM:VRT permission/confirmation. But this is not G8; and it was previously kept, so declining speedy. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- We need proof via VRT confirmation for every 'own work' upload? Zanahary (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, however, a VRT permission/confirmation is needed for this file. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why this one? Zanahary (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, however, a VRT permission/confirmation is needed for this file. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- We need proof via VRT confirmation for every 'own work' upload? Zanahary (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, look at the nom: the nominator doesn’t understand that Lucian Wintrich is the photographer, not the subject. 173.77.183.96 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Picture taken most likely from an old manual or spare parts catalog, obviously no own work from 2024, can be found widely spread across the internet, for example here, published allready in 2013. Copyvio. Druschba 4 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
