Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

May 11

[edit]

That's exists Vitor Hello? 00:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete as a duplicate of this file. Contributor2020Talk to me here! 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One has text annotation and one is "clean". So not exact duplicates. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the newfound information of the annotations, I would  Abstain from voting as even though I don't understand usecases for the picture without annotations (that is this), it certainly isn't a "duplicate". --Contributor2020Talk to me here! 14:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I duplicate for being an confused editor here. Vitor Hello? 21:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate Nonosh666 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


duplicate Nonosh666 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



File originally had CC license without any proof that the photographer choose it. Now it has no license. Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely use of AI in creation Casual1245 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a text tag that I had mistakenly permanently put on the picture? Pierrevang3 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see the original picture:
Pierrevang3 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other POV of this show can easily be found on internet, starting from the full length video of the dance performance [1]. Nothing AI about it. Pierrevang3 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Incorrect license, official company logo not author's own work. I did upload a better quality version of this file with the correct license at File:Marvel Studios The First 10 Years logo.png instead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Seeing that there is a backlog of five months for deletion requests, I find it necessary to continue the clean-up of fictitious flags uploaded by Santiago RD, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictitious flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic. My apologies for dragging GTRus into this mess.They have done nothing wrong by producing svg files from the SantiagoRd files.

TU-nor (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: I haven't checked them all, but a random sample suggests that these are in use on Spanish Wikipedia. Under COM:INUSE, Commons should not delete files that are used by other projects solely because they're alleged to be inaccurate. --bjh21 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bjh21: They are used in Spanish Wiki because the uploading editor Santiago RD has placed them in the Spanish Wiki template es:Plantilla:DOM. Those flags are not "inaccurate", they are completely fake, they are a hoax. I am sure that COM:INUSE is not meant to protect fake information just because the uploading editor is smart enough to use the uploads in some Wiki. --TU-nor (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: Taking the first two files, File:Bandera del Municipio La Caleta.png was added to pl:La Caleta by Janusz J., while File:Bandera del Municipio La Cienaga.png was added to es:La Ciénaga (Barahona) by Aitorembe. Neither change has ever been reverted or even discussed on the relevant talk page. COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV say that we leave content decisions like this up to individual Wikipedias. Once the various Wikipedias have decided that they don't need these files, then we can delete them. --bjh21 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Santiago RD has uploaded hundreds of non-existent flags they have created themselves. I find it difficult to accept that we cannot remove them just because other users in good faith have believed they were real and used some of them in articles. --TU-nor (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

These files are recreations of fictitious flags removed two years ago in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictitious flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic. See also files by same uploader removed recently twice in Commons:Deletion requests/Flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic.

TU-nor (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 07:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Various versions of these flags have been uploaded in the past and subsequently deleted as fictional in multiple DRs over the years. The main seeming to be Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictitious flags of municipalities of the Dominican Republic. So these images should be re-deleted as OOS since there apparently aren't any actual flags for municipalities of the Dominican Republic to begin with. Although I'm more then willing to remove any from the deletion request where there's evidence of it actually being used IRL.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although I appreciate your concern, I don't think every image should just be deleted. Regarding your statement of no "actual flags for municipalities of the Dominican Republic", I disagree; many US municipalities use white flags with the seal and no one says they aren't "actual flags".

Every image (usually ending in ".gif") on Flags of the World I can confirm the existence of. Most are created by FOTW member Randy Young, who is indeed quite reputable. Sadly, I can't confirm the existence of flags for: El Seibo Province, Castañuelas, and Hondo Valle. Now, I can't give you proof regarding the Puerto Plata variant I submitted, but I can tell you I saw this flag quite often; you'll find it somewhere. Perhaps if you search ayuntamiento municipal puerto plata on Google Maps, you'll find it beside the DR flag. Flagvisioner (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference between flags for US municipalities versus these images is that the flags for US municipalities are actual flags used by the local governments. Not just digital files that can only be found on Wikimedia Commons or similar sites. Per at least Google's definition of a flag "a piece of cloth or similar material, typically oblong or square, attachable by one edge to a pole or rope." Not that you can't have digital versions of flags, but they should at least exist IRL and outside of Wikipedia to qualify as educational. Otherwise it's just a random image with a solid colored square background, which you'd have to agree isn't a flag and doesn't intrinsically have any educational value. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all of the ones I back up have sources on FOTW, linking to an image (sometimes dead). Example is Duvergé, at https://m.facebook.com/202082586503881/photos/a.453801911331946/990152507696881/?type=3. Flags of the World is a quite a reliable source for flags; it functions like a Wikipedia for flags while maintaining reliability through its mailing list, where editors and contributors review information to try and ensure its reliability. I should also add that its likely San Pedro and Puerto Plata provinces might have no flags; I can’t find any images, which the Dominican Republic editor on FOTW has also stated. Flagvisioner (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flagvisioner: According to the Flags of the World website content from there is copyrighthed. So what's your basis for thinking we can use images from it to begin with even if its supposedly a reliable source for flags? One of the problems with this is that we clearly can't even know who made the flags, where they came from, or if they are copyrighted or not if they are non-official/fictional and sourced from a copyright website. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as I said in my last post, Flags of the World functions like a Wikipedia for flags while maintaining reliability through its mailing list, where editors and contributors review information to try and ensure its reliability. FOTW always assumes contributors’ very specific interpretations of drawings are copyrighted, though not really the case most often. Also, it is very easy to see who submitted specific information about a flag, as the date of posting and contributor’s name is next to every image/piece of info. Obviously, the images come from https://crwflags.com/fotw/flags/; you can click on the map to be directed to the page of any country. I am assuming you clicked on the link which leads to an image of the flag of Duvergé, which can be seen being held by government employees that work with the municipality; it should be noted it has a nice gold fringe and quality, showing it is meant to be used in a government office. As such, I’m not sure what you mean by “we clearly can’t even know”, you can easily find this by clicking on one of the over 100,000 pages on Flags of the World. Flagvisioner (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOTW always assumes contributors’ very specific interpretations of drawings are copyrighted The problem is that we have no way of knowing when it is or isn't the case on our end since the flags aren't officially created to begin with and most of these countries don't have exceptions for flags anyway even if they were. But the default is always to assume that any user generated content from another website is copyrighted unless there's evidence to the contrary, which I don't see here. In fact FOTW clearly says "This page is part of © FOTW Flags Of The World website."
I am assuming you clicked on the link which leads to an image of the flag of Duvergé... I assume you mean this link since you didn't specify. I don't see an image of anyone holding the flag in that link. Let alone any government employees that work with the municipality. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through my message, you will easily find a link at: https://www.facebook.com/202082586503881/photos/a.453801911331946/990152507696881/?type=3&paipv=0&eav=Afb3zs3E6RPqQ-hLQOWqsgEFCFy6MrqiE8alxhA_Oui9ZLXlCq8xGB6ZFNVR4xGwqr4&_rdr; if you clicked both links you would find "the link which leads to an image of the flag of Duvergé". As I was saying earlier, FOTW claims their contributors own the rights to all of their drawings. Flagvisioner (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "flag" is pretty heavily, if not exclusively, comprised of the municipal shield for Duvergé and there is no general clause saying works created by the government of the Dominican Republic are PD. Obviously you can't just take a previously copyrighted image, put a square blue background behind it, and then claim a copyright to it. That's not how things work. So is there any evidence that the shield of Duvergé is in the public domain to begin with? Otherwise it shouldn't be hosted on Commons regardless of how things are on FOTWs end. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Seems like a photograph of a photograph that was taken somewhere in the Fiserv Forum, as you could see subtle reflections of two people, as well as a discoloration that seems to indicate that it is a screen.

Accidentally listed it as copyvio instead of a deletion nomination, so I'm taking the liberty to use the challenge button to change it to one. reppoptalk 04:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per thread raised at the Village pump, the photographer may not be Joelle Jay Smart, since she is actually pictured. However, since the user has been recently active (last April), I'm giving them the chance to clarify the copyright status of this photograph by stating who the photographer was and if it is possible to get written permission from them. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My dad took the picture and used my account to upload it. What form of written permission is needed? JoelleJay (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay thanks for the prompt response. Please follow the steps at COM:VRT. Have a good day Bedivere (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was first published here, not sure VRT is required, though always helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as own work, but is clearly part of the actor's publicity photos, and appears also eg. here https://www.oncevatan.com.tr/cansu-senem-roportaji-benim-mucadelem-kendimle-cansu-senem-kimdir-kac-yasinda DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La persona que aparece en la imagen pide que eliminen la imagen porque no desea estar en Wikipedia. Además de esto, actualmente la imagen no ofrece nada, es innecesaria. Axyfz (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travail inédit, aucune provenance indiquée, l'auteur n'est pas connu, unique contribution de Lemerciers sur Commons Pierrette13 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply coat of arms, Non-Germany origin TentingZones1 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is more than likely copyright infringement as it seems to be taken from an online shop, judging by the angle and composition. Kj1595 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low res version of a graphic which exists at higher resolution elsewhere (eg. https://cdn.torneos.gg/media/images/games/icon/1.webp) Belbury (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream.

Gikü (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very bad quality, superseded MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


bad quality, superseded MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


to think Google AP didn't use whitepoint is ridiculous, its a 500 yr old painting! This counts for all these "fixed" images MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, excuse me, but the image is tagged as remastered color. Where you there when it was originally created? You think it looked like the Google version then? Are you a troll? Pixel8tor (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Logo originates in Singapore, where TOO is very low. Also uploader appears to have taken the image from elsewhere and claimed it as own work (see also File:Low Yen Ling.jpg). S5A-0043Talk 14:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family objection. Dineshmendhe3 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No face no personality issue. Keep. 200.39.139.3 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find this to be a copyright issue. There is a whole series of photos from this wedding - all with same photographer and camera. If there is a valid objection to this image, please make it. Best. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all being removed. 128.6.36.153 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family objection. 128.6.36.153 15:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

There is now acceptable Freedom of Panorama in Kosovo; see this discussion at Village Pump/Copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete Good news. I agree to delete NoFoP-Kosovo template. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since). I'm not sure why—isn't the Netflix logo below the threshold of originality? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not a problem, but the photos on the bags are. --Didym (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Didym: oh, I see. What if we blurred out the picture on the top right bag? That seems to be the only obvious one. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

descrption says that it is copyrighted Krok6kola (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even freely licensed images has copyright. Question is if the uploader is the same person who claims copyright (seems like it based on the name). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yusuf Erkenov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: Unused early versions of File:Расселение финно-угров.svg

Enyavar (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 facsimile of work in PD. Plaga med (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]